Admin: Create comprehensive No Original Research policy with examples

2025-10-19T10:36:13Z

Create comprehensive No Original Research policy with examples

New page

'''No Original Research'''

'''No original research''' (NOR) is a core policy of CEO.wiki. Articles should not contain original research, which includes any analysis, synthesis, or interpretation not already published in reliable sources.

== What is Original Research? ==

Original research includes:
* Unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas
* Analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a new position
* Conclusions not explicitly stated in sources
* Personal knowledge or expertise without published verification

== The Core Rule ==

'''CEO.wiki summarizes existing knowledge; it does not create new knowledge.'''

If you cannot find a reliable published source that makes the same claim you want to add, that claim is likely original research and should not be included.

== Common Types of Original Research ==

=== Synthesis of Published Material ===

Combining information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of them.

'''Original Research - Synthesis:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
Source A says: "CEO Smith sold 100,000 shares on June 1, 2024."
Source B says: "The company announced layoffs on June 5, 2024."
Article states: "Smith sold shares days before announcing layoffs, suggesting he knew about the planned workforce reductions in advance."

'''Why this is OR:''' The connection between the stock sale and layoffs is not stated in any source. This is synthesis implying insider trading.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Source States Connection:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"The Wall Street Journal reported that Smith sold 100,000 shares on June 1, four days before the company announced layoffs, raising questions from investors about the timing.<ref>WSJ, June 6, 2024</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' The source explicitly makes the connection and notes investor concern.
</div>

=== Calculations and Analysis ===

Performing your own calculations even using publicly available data.

'''Original Research - Calculation:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"Based on the compensation data, Smith's pay increased 47% faster than company revenue over his tenure."

'''Why this is OR:''' Even if the calculation is correct, if no source has published this specific comparison, it's original research.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Source Provides Analysis:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"According to an analysis by Harvard Business Review, Smith's compensation increased at a rate 47% higher than revenue growth during his tenure as CEO.<ref>HBR, March 2024, p. 45</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published source performed the analysis.
</div>

=== Interpretation of Data ===

Drawing conclusions from data or images.

'''Original Research - Interpretation:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"The stock chart shows a clear correlation between Smith's strategic announcements and stock price increases, demonstrating the market's confidence in his leadership."

'''Why this is OR:''' This interprets chart data to reach a conclusion about causation and market confidence.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Source Interprets:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"Bloomberg analysts noted that the stock price typically increased following Smith's strategic announcements, attributing this to increased market confidence.<ref>Bloomberg Markets, Feb 2024</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published analysts made the interpretation.
</div>

=== Personal Knowledge ===

Adding information you know to be true but cannot verify through published sources.

'''Original Research - Personal Knowledge:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"Smith is known for arriving at the office at 5 AM every day and personally reviewing all major decisions."

'''Why this is OR:''' Even if you work there and know this is true, without a published source, it's original research.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Published Source:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"A profile in Fortune magazine described Smith's work habits, noting that he typically arrives at the office at 5 AM and personally reviews major strategic decisions.<ref>Fortune, "A Day with CEO Smith," April 2024, p. 72</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published source documented the information.
</div>

=== Expert Opinion ===

Using your own expertise to make claims.

'''Original Research - Expert Opinion:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"As a former investment banker, I can attest that this acquisition structure is unusual and likely designed to minimize tax implications."

'''Why this is OR:''' Your expertise doesn't matter without published sources. CEO.wiki is not a platform for expert commentary.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Published Expert:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"Tax attorney Jane Doe, writing in the Tax Law Review, argued that the acquisition structure appeared designed to minimize tax implications.<ref>Doe, Jane. "M&A Tax Strategies." Tax Law Review, Vol. 45, 2024, p. 123</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published expert in reliable source.
</div>

== What is Not Original Research ==

=== Routine Calculations ===

Some basic facts don't require sources:

'''Acceptable - Simple Math:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"Smith was born in 1965 and became CEO in 2020 at age 55."

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Simple arithmetic using verified birth year and appointment date. However, providing a source is still better practice.
</div>

=== Straightforward Descriptions ===

Describing what a source says:

'''Acceptable - Summarizing:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"The annual report stated that revenue increased by 15% and operating margin improved by 2 percentage points.<ref>Company Annual Report 2023, p. 5</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Direct summary of source content without added interpretation.
</div>

=== Translation ===

Translating foreign language sources:

'''Acceptable - Translation:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"According to French newspaper Le Monde, the CEO stated, 'We are committed to the European market' (translated from French).<ref>Le Monde, March 15, 2024</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Straightforward translation with source cited and translation noted.
</div>

== Special Cases ==

=== Historical Context ===

Providing context is acceptable if sourced:

'''Original Research - Unsourced Context:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"This decision came at a challenging time for the industry, as many companies were struggling with similar issues."

'''Why this is OR:''' Without sources, this is interpretation and synthesis.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Sourced Context:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"The decision occurred during what McKinsey described as 'the most challenging period for the industry in decades,' with multiple competitors facing similar pressures.<ref>McKinsey Industry Report, Q2 2024</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Context provided by published source.
</div>

=== Primary Source Analysis ===

Be especially careful with primary sources like financial statements:

'''Original Research - Analyzing Financials:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"An analysis of the 10-K filing reveals concerning trends in inventory turnover and rising debt levels that suggest underlying business problems."

'''Why this is OR:''' This is your analysis of the financial statement, not a published analyst's view.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Published Analysis:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"In their analysis of the company's 10-K filing, Morgan Stanley analysts noted concerning trends in inventory turnover and rising debt levels.<ref>Morgan Stanley Research, "Company Analysis," March 2024</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published analyst performed the analysis.
</div>

=== Photographs and Media ===

Don't draw conclusions from images:

'''Original Research - Image Interpretation:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"The photograph shows Smith looking uncomfortable during the shareholder meeting, suggesting he was unprepared for tough questions."

'''Why this is OR:''' This interprets body language and infers mental state.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Factual Description:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"Smith attended the June 2024 shareholder meeting, where he faced questions about the company's performance."

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Factual statement without interpretation.
</div>

== Comparisons and Rankings ==

=== Published Rankings ===

Only use rankings from reliable published sources:

'''Original Research - Your Ranking:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"Smith is one of the most successful tech CEOs of the decade based on stock performance and innovation."

'''Why this is OR:''' Who says? No source for this ranking or criteria.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Published Ranking:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"Fortune named Smith one of the 'Most Successful Tech CEOs of the Decade' in 2024, citing stock performance and innovation as key criteria.<ref>Fortune, "CEO Rankings 2024," May 2024, p. 45</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published ranking from reliable source.
</div>

=== Peer Comparisons ===

Don't create your own comparisons:

'''Original Research - Comparison:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #d33; padding: 1em; background: #fee; margin: 1em 0;">
"Under Smith's leadership, the company outperformed rivals X, Y, and Z in revenue growth, market cap increase, and profitability."

'''Why this is OR:''' Unless a source made this exact comparison, it's synthesis.
</div>

'''Acceptable - Sourced Comparison:'''
<div style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; padding: 1em; background: #f8f9fa; margin: 1em 0;">
"A Barron's analysis found that under Smith's leadership, the company outperformed rivals X, Y, and Z across metrics including revenue growth, market cap increase, and profitability.<ref>Barron's, "Industry Leaders Compared," June 2024</ref>"

'''Why this is acceptable:''' Published source made the comparison.
</div>

== Avoiding Original Research ==

=== Questions to Ask ===

Before adding content, ask:
1. Can I cite a reliable source that says exactly this?
2. Am I connecting facts that no source has connected?
3. Am I drawing conclusions beyond what sources state?
4. Am I using my own expertise or analysis?
5. Would this require peer review if I published it academically?

If you answer "yes" to questions 2-5, it's likely original research.

=== When in Doubt ===

* '''Find a source''' - Search for published analyses that support your point
* '''Simplify your claim''' - State only what sources explicitly say
* '''Ask on talk page''' - Get community input on borderline cases
* '''Err on caution''' - If unsure, leave it out

== Enforcement ==

=== Identifying OR ===

Look for red flags:
* Claims without citations
* "This suggests..." or "This implies..."
* Comparisons or calculations not from sources
* Connections between disparate facts
* "Obviously" or "Clearly" (often signals unsupported interpretation)

=== Removing OR ===

Original research should be:
* Tagged with {{original research}} for minor issues
* Edited to rely on published sources
* Removed if it cannot be properly sourced
* Discussed on talk page if removal is contested

=== Consequences ===

Persistent addition of original research may result in:
* Article protection
* Editor warnings
* Editing restrictions
* Blocks for serious or repeated violations

== Common Defenses (and Why They Don't Work) ==

❌ "It's obvious" - Obviousness doesn't matter; verification does
❌ "Everyone knows this" - Common knowledge still needs citations
❌ "I'm an expert in this field" - Your expertise needs published verification
❌ "The sources imply this" - Implications are synthesis
❌ "This is basic analysis" - Any analysis requires a published source
❌ "I can prove it with math" - Your calculations are original research

✅ "Here's the published source that states this" - That's what we need!

== See Also ==

* [[CEO.wiki:Verifiability|Verifiability]]
* [[CEO.wiki:Neutral point of view|Neutral Point of View]]
* [[CEO.wiki:Reliable sources|Reliable Sources]]
* [[CEO.wiki:Citing sources|Citation Guidelines]]

== External Links ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy]
* [https://www.sec.gov/edgar SEC EDGAR Database] - Primary source for company data

[[Category:CEO.wiki policies]]
[[Category:Editorial standards]]
[[Category:Core policies]]
[[Category:Sourcing]]

CEO.wiki:No original research - Revision history

Admin: Create comprehensive No Original Research policy with examples