Spring til indhold

Bruger:Johan U/Ingen originalforskning

Fra Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi
Denne side er en officiel politik for den danske Wikipedia – en bredt accepteret standard, alle brugere skal følge. Du må gerne ændre denne side efterhånden som det bliver nødvendigt, men vær sikker på at det afspejler konsensus. Er du i tvivl, så brug diskussionssiden.
Genveje:
WP:OR
WP:NOR
WP:ORIGINAL
Denne side i en nøddeskal
Wikipedia udgiver ikke originaltænkning: Alt materiale i Wikipedia skal være tilskrevet en pålidelig, offentliggjort kilde. Artikler må ikke indeholde nye analyser eller synteser af offentliggjort materiale, der er indskrevet for at fremme en holdning, der ikke klart fremføres af kilderne selv.
Centrale indholdspolitikker
Skriv ud fra et neutralt synspunkt
Ingen førstehåndsforskning
Verificerbarhed
Andre indholdspolitikker
Navngivning
Biografier af levende personer
Billedpolitik
Hvad Wikipedia ikke er

Artikler på Wikipedia må ikke indeholde originalforskning. Udtrykket "originalforskning" (engelsk: original research (OR)) bliver brugt på Wikipedia til omtale af materiale – såsom fakta, påstande og idéer – for hvilke, der ikke eksisterer[1] pålidelige, offentliggjorte kilder. Dette omfatter enhver analyse eller syntese af offentliggjort materiale, der er indskrevet for at fremme en holdning, der ikke klart fremføres af kilderne. For at bevise at du ikke tilføjer OR, skal du være i stand til at citere pålidelige, offentliggjorte kilder, der har direkte forbindelse til artiklens emne og direkte støtter det nedskrevne materiale.

Forbuddet mod OR betyder, at alt det materiale, der er nedskrevet i artiklerne, skal kunne tilskrives en pålidelig, offentliggjort kilde, selv hvis den ikke er tilskrevet direkte.[1] Verificerbarhedspolitikken siger, at alle citater skal kunne tilknyttes en indlejret henvisning til en pålidelig kilde, desuden alt, hvad der er udfordret eller kan blive udfordret – men en kilde skal eksistere[1] selv for materiale, der aldrig bliver udfordret. For eksempel: påstanden: "Paris er Frankrigs hovedstad" behøver ingen kilde, da formodentlig ingen vil protestere i mod det, og da vi ved, at der eksisterer kilder for det. Påstanden kan tilskrives en kilde, selv om den ikke er tilskrevet en kilde.

Trods behovet for at tillægge indholdet pålidelige kilder, skal du ikke plagiere dem eller krænke deres ophavsret. Artikler skal skrives med dine egne ord, men kildematerialets pointe skal fremgå.

"Ingen originalforskning" engelsk: No original research (NOR) er en af de tre centrale indholdspolitikker, som, sammen med neutralitet og verificerbarhed, bestemmer artiklernes type og kvalitet. Fordi disse tre politikker fungerer sammen, bør de ikke tolkes enkeltvis, og bidragydere bør sætte sig ind i dem alle tre.

Brug af kilder

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Genvej:
WP:KLÆBTILKILDEN

Forskning, der består i at samle og organisere materiale fra eksisterende kilder i tråd med denne bestemmelse og andre indholdspolitikker er grundlæggende i opbygningen af en encyklopædi. Den bedste metode er at forske i emnets mest pålidelige kilder og opsummere deres budskab med dine egne ord, men med en formulering, så hver eneste påstand i artiklen kan tilskrives en kilde, der gør påstanden sandsynlig. Kildemateriale bør være forsigtigt opsummeret eller refereret uden ændringer i mening eller virkning på læseren. Vær forsigtig med at gå længere væk fra det, der klart udtrykkes i kilderne, og med at bruge dem på måder, der er uforenelige med kildens budskab, såsom at tage udtalelser ud af en sammenhæng. Kort sagt: klæb til kilderne.

Hvis der ikke eksisterer pålidelige tredjepart-kilder for emnet, bør Wikipedia ikke have en artikel om emnet. Hvis du selv opdager noget nyt, er Wikipedia ikke det rette sted til offentliggørelsen.

Pålidelige kilder

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Uddybende Se også: Wikipedia:Verificerbarhed

Alt materiale, der bliver udfordret eller vil blive udfordret skal være støttet af en pålidelig kilde. Materiale, for hvilket, der ikke kan findes en pålidelig kilde anses for værende originalforskning. Den eneste måde, hvorpå du kan bevise at dit bidrag ikke er originalforskning, er at citere en pålidelig offentliggjort kilde, der indeholder det samme materiale. Men selv ved brug af velunderbygget materiale (hvis du tager det ud af en sammenhæng, eller fremmer en holdning, der ikke umiddelbart og udtrykkeligt støttes af kilden) kan du også bevæge dig hen mod originalforskning; se herunder.

Normalt er de fleste pålidelige kilder: peer-reviewede tidsskrifter; bøger udgivet af universiteter; lærebøger på universitetsniveau; magasiner, tidsskrifter og bøger (udgivet af respekterede forlag); og mainstreamaviser. En tommelfingerregel er, at jo flere folk, der har arbejdet med at tjekke fakta, analysere juridiske problemer og kontrollere skrivningen, jo mere pålidelig er tryksagen. Selvudgivet materiale, både på papir og online ses generelt ikke som værende pålideligt; en undtagelse er dog, hvis materialet er skrevet af en velkendt ekspert på området, hvis værker inden for samme område tidligere har været offentliggjort i pålidelige tredjeparts-publikationer.

Informationen i artiklen skal være verificerbar i de citerede referencer. Generelt bør artiklens udsagn ikke bygge på modstridende eller uklare passager eller på videregivne komentarer. Passager, der kan tolkes på flere måder, bør blive citeret præcist eller undgås helt. En oversigt over en indgående diskussion bør afspejle konklusionerne i kilden; at drage konklusioner, der ikke optræder i referencen er originalforskning uanset kildens art. Det er vigtigt, at referencer nævnes i kontekst og i emnet.

Primære, sekundære og tertiære kilder

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Genveje:
WP:PSTK
WP:PRIMÆRE
WP:SEKUNDÆRE
WP:TERTIÆRE

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:[2]

  • Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]
Skabelon:Fontcolor: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
  • A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7]
Skabelon:Fontcolor: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
  • Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
Skabelon:Fontcolor: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

Synthesis of published material that advances a position

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]

Skabelon:Policy shortcut Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

  • A simple example of original synthesis:

Skabelon:Quote box4

  • Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

Skabelon:Quote box4

  • The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to this dispute:

Skabelon:Quote box4

  • Now comes the original synthesis:

Skabelon:Quote box4

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Originale billeder

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Genvej:
WP:OB

Grundet love om ophavsret i forskellige lande, kan relativ få billeder bruges lovligt på Wikipedia. Bidragyderne er derfor nødt til at uploade deres egne billeder og udgive dem under GNU Free Documentation License, CC-BY-SA eller en anden fri licens, der gør billedet til offentlig ejendom. Originale billeder, der er skabt af en wikipedianer ses ikke som originalforskning, så længe de ikke illustrerer eller introducerer ikke-udgivne idéer eller argumenter, der anfægter NOR-politikken. Billedtekster hører under denne politik så vel som udsagn i hovedartiklen.

Brug af billedmanipulation til fordrejning af kendsgerninger eller holdninger, billedet illustrerer er ikke acceptabelt. Når billeder er manipulerede skal denne information tydeligt fremgå. Ethvert manipuleret billede, med en tydeligt forringet encyklopædisk værdi vil blive slettet. Billeder af levende personer må ikke præsentere personen i et falsk eller nedsættende lys.

Oversættelser og transskriptioner

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Genvej:
WP:TRANSSKRIPTION
Uddybende Se også: Wikipedia:Oversættelser

At skabe en trofast dansk oversættelse af kildemateriale, eller transskribere udtalelser fra lydfiler eller videofiler, ses ikke som originalforskning.

Rutinemæssige beregninger

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Genvej:
WP:CALC

Rutinemæssige beregninger tæller ikke som originalforskning. Grundlæggende aritmetik, såsom tilføjelse af tal, konvertering af enheder eller beregning af en persons alder, er tilladt, hvis der er konsensus mellem bidragyderne om, at beregningen er en indlysende, korrekt og meningsfuld reflektion af kilderne. Se også Kategori:Konverteringsskabeloner.

Relaterede politikker

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]

Verificerbarhed

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Hovedartikel: Wikipedia:Verificerbarhed.

Verificerbarhed betyder i Wikipedia-sammenhæng at artikelindholdet skal have en sådan karakter at de kan efterkontrolleres, hvis det måtte ønskes. Derfor skal information som med rimelighed kan betvivles, have henvisning til velrenommerede og troværdige kilder. Materiale som ikke kan verificeres, kan fjernes.

Neutralt synspunkt

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
Hovedartikel: Wikipedia:Skriv Wikipedia fra et neutralt synspunkt.

Wikipedia har en vigtig retningslinje, der kort og godt lyder, at man skal skrive upartiske artikler, som på retfærdig vis repræsenterer alle synsvinkler. Retningslinjerne går ikke ud fra, at det er muligt at skrive en artikel fra blot én synsvinkel, som er lige netop den upartiske artikel, med en "objektiv" synsvinkel. Wikipedias neutralitetsretningslinjer angiver, at vi på retfærdig vis skal repræsentere flest mulige synsvinkler i en debat og ikke lade en artikel slå fast, underforstå, eller antyde at en bestemt synsvinkel er den korrekte.

Jimbo Wales har om emnet udtalt:

  • If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[9]

Se også

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]

Noter

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]
  1. ^ a b c Med "eksisterer" menes der, at den pålidelige kilde har været offentliggjort og stadig eksisterer – et eller andet sted i verden, på et eller andet sprog, online eller ej – også hvis der i øjeblikket ikke findes navngivne kilder i artiklen. Artikler, der i øjeblikket ikke nævner kilder af nogen type kan være i fuld overensstemmelse med denne politik – så længe der er en rimelig forventning om, at alt materiale er støttet af en offentliggjort, pålidelig kilde.
  2. ^ This University of Maryland library page provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
  3. ^ Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
    • The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
    • The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
    • Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
  4. ^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
  5. ^ University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".
  6. ^ The Ithaca College Library compares research articles to review articles. Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.
  7. ^ Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Multiple coverage in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book; a book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author and related writing issues than be considered a secondary source for the topics covered within the book. For definitions of book reviews:
    • Princeton's Wordnet 2011 scholarly definitions repository defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, [of] a recently published book)."
    • VirginiaTech University Libraries provides the following definition: "A book review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a book. [...] Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."
  8. ^ Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)
  9. ^ Wales, Jimmy. "WikiEN-l roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--", September 29, 2003.

Videre læsning

[redigér | rediger kildetekst]



Hentet fra "https://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruger:Johan_U/Ingen_originalforskning&oldid=7018212"