"No unique examination" (NOR) has its causes in the "impartial perspective" (NPOV) strategy and the issue of managing unjustifiable weight and periphery hypotheses. The center arrangement of Wikipedia, NPOV, is intended to furnish a system whereby editors with assorted, frequently clashing, in any event, restricting perspectives can team up on the formation of a reference book. It does as such through the rule that while it is regularly difficult for individuals to concur concerning what is reality, it is a lot simpler for individuals to concur regarding what they and others accept to be reality. Along these lines, Wikipedia doesn't utilize "truth" as a standard for consideration. All things considered, it means to represent extraordinary, prominent perspectives on reality. First classified in February 2001, the goal of the NPOV strategy is to deliver a fair reference book.

In the two years that followed, a decent arrangement of contention on article talk pages included allegations that editors were abusing NPOV, and it turned out to be evident that this approach, 우리카지노 which gave a philosophical establishment to Wikipedia, should have been enhanced. Wikipedians built up the idea of "unquestionable status" (V) as a method of guaranteeing the precision of articles by urging editors to refer to sources; this idea was set up as an arrangement in August 2003. Obviousness was likewise elevated as an approach to guarantee that striking perspectives would be addressed, under the presumption that the most prominent perspectives were least demanding to report with sources. Prominence is particularly significant on the grounds that while NPOV urges editors to add substitute and various perspectives to an article, it doesn't guarantee that all perspectives are equivalent. Despite the fact that NPOV doesn't guarantee that a few perspectives are more honest than others, it recognizes that a few perspectives are held by a greater number of individuals than others. Precisely addressing a view thusly likewise implies clarifying who holds the view and whether it is a greater part or minority see.

Before long it became obvious that editors who dismissed a greater part view would frequently marshal sources to contend that a minority see was better than a lion's share see—or would even add sources to advance the manager's own view. Consequently, the NOR strategy was set up in 2003 to address dangerous employments of sources. The first inspiration for NOR was to keep editors from presenting periphery sees in science, particularly physical science—or from barring obvious perspectives that, in the judgment of editors, were incorrect.[1] It before long turned out to be certain that the strategy ought to apply to any manager attempting to present their own perspectives into an article. This likewise prompted the refinement and production of sub segments managing the equilibrium of inclusion.

In its soonest structure, the strategy singled out alters for rejection that:

Present a hypothesis or technique for arrangement;

Present unique thoughts;

Characterize existing terms in an unexpected way; or present neologisms;

what's more, settled as standards for incorporation alters that present:

Thoughts that have been acknowledged for distribution in a friend inspected diary; or

Thoughts that have gotten newsworthy: they have been over and again and freely announced in papers or reports (like the cool combination story).

As a more assorted local area of editors were attracted to Wikipedia, it turned out to be evident that different themes other than physical science, like legislative issues, 카지노사이트 religion, and history, were drawing in unique examination. The need emerged to look for a more orderly way to deal with characterize unique examination and guide editors to keep away from it.[2] The standards of "evidence" and "no unique exploration" cover, and an endeavor was made in 2007 to join the two pages into one (see Wikipedia:Attribution), however it neglected to acquire agreement.