CEO.wiki:No original research

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• Unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas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:

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.

Acceptable - Source States Connection:

"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."

Why this is acceptable: The source explicitly makes the connection and notes investor concern.

Calculations and Analysis

Performing your own calculations even using publicly available data.

Original Research - Calculation:

"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.

Acceptable - Source Provides Analysis:

"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."

Why this is acceptable: Published source performed the analysis.

Interpretation of Data

Drawing conclusions from data or images.

Original Research - Interpretation:

"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.

Acceptable - Source Interprets:

"Bloomberg analysts noted that the stock price typically increased following Smith's strategic announcements, attributing this to increased market confidence."

Why this is acceptable: Published analysts made the interpretation.

Personal Knowledge

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

Original Research - Personal Knowledge:

"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.

Acceptable - Published Source:

"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."

Why this is acceptable: Published source documented the information.

Expert Opinion

Using your own expertise to make claims.

Original Research - Expert Opinion:

"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.

Acceptable - Published Expert:

"Tax attorney Jane Doe, writing in the Tax Law Review, argued that the acquisition structure appeared designed to minimize tax implications."

Why this is acceptable: Published expert in reliable source.

What is Not Original Research

Routine Calculations

Some basic facts don't require sources:

Acceptable - Simple Math:

"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.

Straightforward Descriptions

Describing what a source says:

Acceptable - Summarizing:

"The annual report stated that revenue increased by 15% and operating margin improved by 2 percentage points."

Why this is acceptable: Direct summary of source content without added interpretation.

Translation

Translating foreign language sources:

Acceptable - Translation:

"According to French newspaper Le Monde, the CEO stated, 'We are committed to the European market' (translated from French)."

Why this is acceptable: Straightforward translation with source cited and translation noted.

Special Cases

Historical Context

Providing context is acceptable if sourced:

Original Research - Unsourced Context:

"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.

Acceptable - Sourced Context:

"The decision occurred during what McKinsey described as 'the most challenging period for the industry in decades,' with multiple competitors facing similar pressures."

Why this is acceptable: Context provided by published source.

Primary Source Analysis

Be especially careful with primary sources like financial statements:

Original Research - Analyzing Financials:

"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.

Acceptable - Published Analysis:

"In their analysis of the company's 10-K filing, Morgan Stanley analysts noted concerning trends in inventory turnover and rising debt levels."

Why this is acceptable: Published analyst performed the analysis.

Photographs and Media

Don't draw conclusions from images:

Original Research - Image Interpretation:

"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.

Acceptable - Factual Description:

"Smith attended the June 2024 shareholder meeting, where he faced questions about the company's performance."

Why this is acceptable: Factual statement without interpretation.

Comparisons and Rankings

Published Rankings

Only use rankings from reliable published sources:

Original Research - Your Ranking:

"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.

Acceptable - Published Ranking:

"Fortune named Smith one of the 'Most Successful Tech CEOs of the Decade' in 2024, citing stock performance and innovation as key criteria."

Why this is acceptable: Published ranking from reliable source.

Peer Comparisons

Don't create your own comparisons:

Original Research - Comparison:

"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.

Acceptable - Sourced Comparison:

"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."

Why this is acceptable: Published source made the comparison.

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 Template: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

• Verifiability
• Neutral Point of View
• Reliable Sources
• Citation Guidelines

External Links

• Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy
• SEC EDGAR Database - Primary source for company data