Original research on Wikimedia projects

This resource includes primary and/or secondary research. Learn more about original research at Wikiversity.

This article by Dan Polansky explores original research policies, guidelines and policy/guideline drafts at Wikimedia projects. These projects, which include Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiversity, etc., differ as for their allowance/disallowance of original research. Two projects that allow some form of original research are the English Wikiversity and the English Wiktionary. The English Wikibooks seems to tolerate original research without truly supporting it by policy. The status of non-English projects would need to be carefully checked.

The English Wikipedia disallows original research. It further requires neutral point of view and use of reliable sources.

Hypothesis: The policies of disallowance of original research in combination with neutral point of view and use of reliable sources are some of the things that make the encyclopedia so attractive, even if these items are often not fully enforced.

Further reading:

• Wikipedia: Wikipedia: No original research

The English Wikisource seems to disallow original research: it hosts texts already published elsewhere.

Whether self-published texts can be hosted on Wikisource seems unclear. Wikisource: Wikisource:What Wikisource includes states, in section "Analytical and artistic works", "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication."

Further reading:

• Wikisource: Wikisource:What Wikisource includes

The English Wiktionary seems to allow original research in so far as editors are allowed to formulate original definitions that are based not on lexicographical sources but rather on quotations of actual use. This can lead to arbitrary decisions about number of senses, nesting of senses, etc. This is codified in policy Wiktionary: Wiktionary:Criteria for Inclusion.

Most English entries in the English Wiktionary feature zero inline references and zero other kinds of external links. Nor do they feature attesting quotations. On the whole, most of the material in the English Wiktionary is unsubstantiated.

The German Wiktionary also allows quotations-based definitions. However, in contrast to the English Wiktionary, the project seems to take pains to provide comprehensive traceability to external sources, even on sense level.

The English Wikibooks seems to disallow original research. Observations:

• The status of B:Wikibooks:Original research is a draft proposal; it is neither policy nor approved guideline.
• It hints at tolerance: "In principle, Wikibooks discourages original research. In practice, however, Wikibooks allows material based on repeatable information from personal experiences or from common knowledge when published literature might reasonably support it, or consensus might reasonably agree with its inclusion."
• But should dispute arise, it states intolerance: "In principle, Wikibooks discourages original research. [...] If questions do arise, questionable material must cite a reliable publication to be kept."
• A redirect B:WB:NOR exists, pointing to B:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks#Wikibooks is not a mirror or a text repository. There it says "Primary research — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research. Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words. In short, primary research should be published elsewhere, such as a peer-reviewed journal, or our sister project Wikiversity." But the text does not logically belong under the head of "Wikibooks is not a mirror or a text repository". B:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? has the rank of policy; but the page does not trace to any discussion or a vote via inline references.
  • This revision (2 July 2007) stated: "All works here must conform to Wikimedia-wide policy of NPOV, no original research, etc.", but it was removed later.
• In practice, I (Dan Polansky) have not seen disputes concerning original research in the English Wikibooks, and I have seen a lot of material that does look original in some sense, not inline-traced to sources. When I (Dan Polansky) was working on material for the English Wikibooks, I sometimes included original observations based on experimentation. This did not lead to any conflict.

Further reading:

• Wikibooks: Wikibooks:Original research

The English Wikiversity explicitly allows original research. To wit:

• As per policy Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?: "Wikiversity is the place for original research, including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Ethical guidelines must adhere, see Wikiversity:Research ethics. Pages with original research should be marked with the original research or research project templates."
• As per non-policy Wikiversity:Original research: "Original research is permitted on Wikiversity". The page has no formal status.
• As per former policy Wikiversity:Verifiability: it includes "scholarly research performed at Wikiversity" as an option for verification.
  • It is not clear what "scholarly research" is supposed to mean, e.g. whether observing and reporting behavior of Windows cmd.exe counts as "scholarly research" and what is "scholarly" about it.
  • One can explore Category:Essays and judge for oneself whether what is in there is "scholarly research" and what is "scholarly" about it.

To what extent the English Wikiquote allows original research is to be clarified. There seems to be tolerance for quotations that are merely attributed to someone. One would think that either way, there would be in principle a requirement of traceability, either to the original work quoted from, or to the place that rightly or wrongly attributes the quotation to someone.

Further reading:

• Wikiquote: Wikiquote:Citing sources

• Wikidata:Wikipedia:No original research -- one can check links to various non-Wikipedia projects in various languages
• Why Wikipedia’s highway editors took the exit ramp., Dec 2023, slate.com