The Quiet Rule That Limits What Wikipedia Can Say
Any careful explanation of what is Wikipedia must confront a rule that often surprises newcomers more than any other: No Original Research. The policy, known internally as NOR, draws a firm boundary around what contributors may add to the wiki site. It does not govern tone or sourcing style alone. It governs the very nature of contribution.
We secure neutral, policy-aligned Wikipedia citations for reliable inclusion of your organization within the website. Our work focuses on editorial quality, transparent disclosure, and long-term retention rather than promotional insertions.
No Instagram? Contact us here
Wikipedia describes itself as “a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” This statement anchors nearly every Wikipedia introduction and Wikipedia overview. Openness suggests freedom. The No Original Research policy establishes restraint. Together, they define the project’s character.
The policy states, in unambiguous terms:
“Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.”
— Wikipedia, No original research
This rule applies across the entire online encyclopedia, shaping articles on science, history, politics, and culture. It does not prohibit thought. It prohibits contribution of unpublished analysis, synthesis, or firsthand claims.
What “Original Research” Means in Practice
The phrase “original research” carries a specific meaning within Wikipedia. It does not refer only to laboratory experiments or field studies. It refers to any material that has not appeared in reliable, published sources.
The policy defines original research as:
“Facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist.”
— Wikipedia, No original research
This includes:
- Personal interpretations of data
- Novel arguments or frameworks
- Synthesis that reaches a new analytical conclusion
- Firsthand observations, even from experts
A historian may not add a new interpretation of archival material. A scientist may not summarize unpublished findings. A journalist may not report personal interviews conducted solely for Wikipedia.
This boundary clarifies Wikipedia explained at an operational level. Wikipedia documents knowledge. It does not generate it.
Why the Rule Exists
The prohibition against original research developed as a response to scale. Early Wikipedia articles blended sourced facts with contributor insight. As participation expanded, disputes intensified. Editors lacked a shared method for resolving disagreements rooted in interpretation.
No Original Research offered a solution: remove interpretation as a battleground.
Jimmy Wales articulated this logic in a 2004 statement archived on Wikipedia’s mailing lists:
“Wikipedia is not a place to put your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. It is a place to summarize what the world has already published.”
— Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia mailing list
This approach redirected debate toward sources rather than viewpoints. It reduced reliance on trust between editors who might never share background, language, or discipline.
Understanding this motivation matters for anyone writing about Wikipedia as a social system rather than a mere website.
The Three Prohibited Forms of Original Research
Wikipedia’s policy identifies three broad categories of prohibited material. Each addresses a different risk.
Unpublished Facts
Claims without prior publication fall into this category. Personal knowledge, professional experience, or private documentation cannot appear in articles.
An engineer may know a bridge’s design flaws. Without published analysis, that knowledge remains excluded.
Original Analysis or Interpretation
Editors may not reinterpret existing sources to reach a conclusion not stated explicitly. This includes:
- Statistical analysis combining multiple studies
- Reframing historical events under a new theory
- Drawing causal links absent from sources
The policy explains this restriction clearly:
“Synthesis of published material that advances a position not clearly stated by the sources is prohibited.”
— Wikipedia, No original research
Primary Source Overreach
Primary sources may be cited, yet editors must avoid drawing conclusions beyond what secondary sources state.
A court ruling may be cited. An editor may not infer broader legal trends unless reliable commentary has already done so.
This layered restriction reinforces wiki basics for contributors who arrive with academic or professional backgrounds.
Academic Parallels and Contrasts
The No Original Research policy places Wikipedia at odds with academic incentives. Scholarship rewards originality. Wikipedia forbids it.
This divergence has drawn scholarly attention. In Good Faith Collaboration, Harvard researcher Joseph Reagle observed:
“Wikipedia’s insistence on secondary sourcing rejects the academic valorization of originality in favor of reproducibility and consensus.”
— Joseph Reagle, Good Faith Collaboration
This design choice prioritizes stability over innovation. It aligns Wikipedia more closely with encyclopedias than journals, even as its production model differs radically.
From a governance perspective, the rule limits epistemic risk. It reduces the chance that persuasive writing or specialized knowledge overrides published consensus.
Case Studies: When Original Research Appears
Violations of the policy often occur unintentionally. Editors contribute in good faith, unaware that synthesis or interpretation crosses the line.
Common examples include:
- Combining crime statistics to argue for social causation
- Comparing polling data to infer voter motivation
- Merging medical studies to recommend treatment approaches
In each case, the issue lies not in accuracy, but in novelty. If no reliable source has already drawn the conclusion, Wikipedia will not host it.
Articles subjected to original research disputes frequently undergo extensive revision. Material is removed, rewritten, or replaced with sourced commentary. The process can appear harsh to contributors unfamiliar with the rule’s purpose.
No Original Research and Neutrality
The NOR policy functions alongside Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Together, these policies form a closed system.
Neutrality governs presentation. Verifiability governs sourcing. No Original Research governs content creation.
This triad explains why Wikipedia articles often read cautiously and resist synthesis. Editors refrain from connecting dots unless sources have already done so.
This structure answers recurring questions in Wikipedia definition discussions. Wikipedia is not a think tank. It is not an analytical publication. It is a reference work constrained by documented discourse.
Tensions in Rapidly Evolving Topics
The prohibition against original research becomes especially visible in fast-moving fields. Emerging technologies, public health crises, and unfolding conflicts produce data faster than analysis.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Wikipedia editors relied heavily on statements from the World Health Organization and peer-reviewed journals. Speculative modeling and early hypotheses remained excluded until vetted publications appeared.
A 2020 study in Nature Human Behaviour noted that Wikipedia’s COVID-19 coverage lagged preprint research yet maintained higher sourcing consistency. The authors attributed this pattern to Wikipedia’s resistance to unpublished analysis.
No Original Research slowed coverage. It preserved editorial discipline.
Power, Access, and Exclusion
Like other Wikipedia policies, NOR reflects structural inequalities. Communities lacking representation in published sources face barriers to inclusion.
Oral histories, indigenous knowledge systems, and local expertise often remain unpublished in formats Wikipedia accepts. Editors cannot compensate by contributing firsthand accounts.
The Wikimedia Foundation has acknowledged this limitation in policy discussions. The issue remains unresolved. Efforts to expand acceptable source types continue, yet the core rule stands.
This tension complicates narratives about Wikipedia as a democratizing force. Participation remains open. Contribution remains constrained by existing publishing systems.
Enforcement Without Editorial Authority
No Original Research is enforced through community mechanisms rather than editorial boards.
Tools include:
- Inline “original research” tags
- Talk page discussions
- Content removal by consensus
- Arbitration in persistent cases
Administrators enforce procedure rather than judgment. They assess compliance with policy, not intellectual merit.
This distinction matters. Wikipedia does not reject original research as unworthy. It rejects it as incompatible with its mission.
Public Perception and Misunderstanding
Readers often assume Wikipedia articles reflect expert synthesis. The absence of original analysis can appear evasive or incomplete.
Surveys by the Pew Research Center show high usage paired with moderate trust. Readers frequently cite citations as trust indicators. Few recognize the role of NOR explicitly.
This gap between perception and process explains recurring criticism. Wikipedia feels authoritative. Its rules remain largely invisible.
Greater transparency around No Original Research may clarify expectations for contributors and readers alike.
Final Considerations
No Original Research defines the limits of participation more sharply than any other Wikipedia policy. It answers a basic question underlying what is Wikipedia: Who creates knowledge, and where?
Wikipedia documents published understanding. It does not extend it. Editors function as curators, not authors. Insight without publication remains outside the project’s scope.
For contributors, this rule demands restraint and humility. Expertise alone does not grant permission to contribute analysis. Sources do.
For readers, awareness of this boundary sharpens interpretation. Wikipedia summarizes the state of discourse. It does not push it forward.
The rule frustrates innovation. It protects coherence. Within a global, volunteer-driven free encyclopedia, that tradeoff remains deliberate.
