PESWiki:Original research

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 10:00 pm.

  • 17 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

{| align="center" style=" border: 1px solid #fcc background-color: #fee text-align: center font-size: 100% width:100%"


|style="text-align: center"|

Image:Nuvola apps important-50px.png

The following page is under consideration.


| style="text-align: center"|

This page is in the process of being modified to meet PESWiki standards. It is being discussed and modified, with pertinent issues being considered. This temporary statement will be removed once the necessary adjustments have been made.


There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]

{|style="padding:0.3em margin-left:15px border:1px solid #a3b1bf background:#f5faff text-align:center font-size:95%" align="right"

!style="background:#cee0f2 padding:0.3em"|PESWiki:List of policies


|style="padding:0.2em font-size:0.9em background-color:#cee0f2 text-align:center"| Article standards


|style="padding:0.3em"|PESWiki:Point of viewPESWiki:VerifiabilityPESWiki:Original researchPESWiki:Citing evidenceThere was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2]


|style="padding:0.2em font-size:0.9em background-color:#cee0f2 text-align:center"| Working with others


|style="padding:0.3em"|There was an error working with the wiki: Code[3] and There was an error working with the wiki: Code[4]There was an error working with the wiki: Code[5]There was an error working with the wiki: Code[6]


There was an error working with the wiki: Code[7] and creating original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are doing original research is to cite your reasoning, give observations, provide empirical data and measurable evidence, and/or supply sources that provide information directly related to the article.

Original research (OR) is one of three content policies. The others are There was an error working with the wiki: Code[8] and the various Departments. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

What is included?

The motivation for the OR policy is to help people with new and relevant theories attempting to use PESWiki to draw attention to the new ideas.

Original research includes personal views, opinions, and any analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by PESWiki may already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article, but not necessary. See PESWiki:Original research for more details.

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution

It introduces original ideas

It defines new terms

It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms

It introduces an argument, citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source

It There was an error working with the wiki: Code[9], but can attribute the neologism to a reputable source.


Citing evidence

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2]

The articles which are not derived or copied or translated from previously published sources is referred to as original research. It is is therefore believed to be the original thought of the editor who added it. The only way to show your work is original research is to produce facts about the claims or explain the methods which advances facts associated with your claim.

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged (by it's audience) can be PESWiki:Citing evidence, data, facts, reasonings, and sources. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material an original creation of systematic investigation to establish facts of free energy from which copies can be made being fresh and unusual. Much of PESWiki's content that is and attempt to find out in a systematically and scientific manner about free energy is novel in character or style. "Original reserch" exhibits inventive and creative inquires into free energy.

Among this policies facets shared by the various departments is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the editor can provide evidence. A basic premise of this policy is that of making complete documentation of data, facts, evidence, and reasonings available for careful scrutiny by readers, thereby allowing others the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows measures of the reliability of the content.

PESWiki:Verifiability also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the article. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing the issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the content. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, can be regarded as reliable, but see PESWiki:Verifiability for more.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary evidence

Besiddes original material,

Primary evidence are documents or people very close to the article's content. Primary sources may be used in PESWiki. Anyone&mdashwithout specialist knowledge&mdashwho reads the evidence should be able to verify that the PESWiki passage has some relation with the primary source.Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts photographs newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material not merely analysis or commentary of other material historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations written or recorded records of field observations and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Secondary evidence draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. PESWiki articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present accounts of views and arguments of reliable, verifiable scholars, and the opinions of editors who have read the primary source material for themselves.

Tertiary evidence are publications that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources.

An article or section of an article that relies on any evidence

# should make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

#make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.

Original research that creates primary sources is allowed. Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is also encouraged. Articles on PESWiki should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is "original research" it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing any resource for public consumption. Although most articles rely predominantly on primary and secondary sources, there are occasions when they may rely entirely on tertiary sources.


|There was an error working with the wiki: Code[3]


Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors naturally think that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. This is an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable and does not need a reliable source to have published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Citing oneself

This policy encourages editors with specialist knowledge to add their knowledge to PESWiki, allowing them to draw on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source and complying with our PESWiki:Point of view. But, remember to confer with PESWiki's There was an error working with the wiki: Code[10].

Original images

Pictures are encouraged to be taken and photographs captured or editors can draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is because images propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the OR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free resource, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. PESWiki editors' pictures fill a needed role.

Allowing original photographs to be uploaded though introduces the possibility of editors using There was an error working with the wiki: Code[11]. Images that constitute original research in other ways may be allowed, such as a diagram of phenonomena theorized and supported by facts and data.

Related policies

Verifiability (V)

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[4]

The threshold for inclusion in PESWiki is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that can be supported by various sources may be published in PESWiki, the original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another.

Point of view (POV)

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[5]

Original research increases the possibility of cutting edge point of views in an article. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our POV policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of anyone to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that individuals situate the research that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and by whom it is held.

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents If a viewpoint is held by an small minority, then &mdash if you can provide evidence for it &mdash it can belong in PESWiki in some article.

Other options

A few pages have been created devoted to research into issues related to PESWiki for instance There was an error working with the wiki: Code[13], research for which there is no reference other than projects in the PESWiki namespace. Original research that does not have PESWiki as its object should, however, be avoided there.

PESWiki-style websites that allow original research but are not affiliated with the There was an error working with the wiki: Code[14] include There was an error working with the wiki: Code[15], There was an error working with the wiki: Code[16] and There was an error working with the wiki: Code[17].

See also

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[6] - message used signify original research

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[12]

PESWiki:Citing sources