7 replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site as defined by the FAQFAQ contains nearly exactly the same idea (my emphasis):

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community (and perhaps the FAQ) ought to promote the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site as defined by the FAQ contains nearly exactly the same idea (my emphasis):

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community (and perhaps the FAQ) ought to promote the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • Even better, multiple sources
  • No citations, but a thoughtful experiment

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site as defined by the FAQ contains nearly exactly the same idea (my emphasis):

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community (and perhaps the FAQ) ought to promote the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • Even better, multiple sources
  • No citations, but a thoughtful experiment
6 Rollback to Revision 2
source | link

Wikipedia has had a huge influence over the development of Stack Exchange. This is another instance where we steal page from Wikipedia's book. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site, as defined by the the FAQFAQ, is to combat unsubstantiated claims contains nearly exactly the same idea (my emphasis):

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applyingapplying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a validvalid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the naturenature of Skeptics, the community needs(and perhaps the FAQ) ought to enforcepromote the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Users are required to reference all significant claims they make in their answers.  

There are some types of questions that we can safely answer without needing references, however, such as claims that blatantly violate some laws of nature or known scientific facts (around high school level). For example, debunking a claim about a perpetuum mobile, linking to Wikipedia's article about the laws of thermodynamics might be advisable, but only for the reader's convenience.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • "A recent Argonne National Lab study concluded that..."
  • Even better, multiple sources
  • No citations, but a thoughtful experiment

Wikipedia has had a huge influence over the development of Stack Exchange. This is another instance where we steal page from Wikipedia's book. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site, as defined by the FAQ, is to combat unsubstantiated claims:

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community needs to enforce the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Users are required to reference all significant claims they make in their answers.  

There are some types of questions that we can safely answer without needing references, however, such as claims that blatantly violate some laws of nature or known scientific facts (around high school level). For example, debunking a claim about a perpetuum mobile, linking to Wikipedia's article about the laws of thermodynamics might be advisable, but only for the reader's convenience.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • "A recent Argonne National Lab study concluded that..."
  • Even better, multiple sources

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site as defined by the FAQ contains nearly exactly the same idea (my emphasis):

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community (and perhaps the FAQ) ought to promote the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • Even better, multiple sources
  • No citations, but a thoughtful experiment
    Mod Removes Wiki by Borror0
    Post Undeleted by Borror0
    Post Deleted by Mad Scientist
    Post Merged (destination) from meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5/…
5 added 3 characters in body; deleted 9 characters in body
source | link

Wikipedia has had a huge influence over the development of Stack Exchange. This is another instance where we steal page from Wikipedia's book. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site, as defined by the FAQ, is to combat unsubstantiated claims:

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community needs to enforce the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Users are strongly encouragedrequired to citereference all significant claims they make in their answers.

There are some types of questions that we can safely answer without needing references, however, such as claims that blatantly violate some laws of nature or known scientific facts (around high school level). For example, debunking a claim about a perpetuum mobile, linking to Wikipedia's article about the laws of thermodynamics might be advisable, but only for the reader's convenience.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • "A recent Argonne National Lab study concluded that..."
  • Even better, multiple sources

Wikipedia has had a huge influence over the development of Stack Exchange. This is another instance where we steal page from Wikipedia's book. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site, as defined by the FAQ, is to combat unsubstantiated claims:

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community needs to enforce the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Users are strongly encouraged to cite all significant claims they make in their answers.

There are some types of questions that we can safely answer without needing references, however, such as claims that blatantly violate some laws of nature or known scientific facts (around high school level). For example, debunking a claim about a perpetuum mobile, linking to Wikipedia's article about the laws of thermodynamics might be advisable, but only for the reader's convenience.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • "A recent Argonne National Lab study concluded that..."
  • Even better, multiple sources

Wikipedia has had a huge influence over the development of Stack Exchange. This is another instance where we steal page from Wikipedia's book. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

The Wikipedia community relies on the No Original Research core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

Nutshell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

The very purpose of this site, as defined by the FAQ, is to combat unsubstantiated claims:

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read.

The voting system of Stack Exchange is largely meant to relax any need for specific policy regarding what constitutes a valid answer (and by and large it accomplishes this) — however, due to the nature of Skeptics, the community needs to enforce the idea of no original research to encourage healthy voting.

Users are required to reference all significant claims they make in their answers.

There are some types of questions that we can safely answer without needing references, however, such as claims that blatantly violate some laws of nature or known scientific facts (around high school level). For example, debunking a claim about a perpetuum mobile, linking to Wikipedia's article about the laws of thermodynamics might be advisable, but only for the reader's convenience.

Bad:

  • "...since I have personally experienced it numerous times"
  • "Anecdotally, I've seen it..."
  • "I heard that it was also caused by ..."
  • "I'm not sure if this idea comes from some research"

Good:

  • "There is a fairly comprehensive article on the topic at..."
  • "A recent Argonne National Lab study concluded that..."
  • Even better, multiple sources
4 deleted 78 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body
source | link
3 Made CW for FAQ. Added part of Fabian's other answer.; added 2 characters in body
source | link
2 edited this answer a bit, this will probably the post we link to in the future
source | link
1
source | link