The Wikipedia community relies on the **[No Original Research](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)** core policy to combat unsubstantiated claims from finding their way into articles:

> ![Nutshell][1] 
> 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](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/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](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1208/is-this-proof-of-geocentrism-scientifically-valid/1212#1212)

  [1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Nutshell.png