উইকিপিডিয়া:কোনো মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

বিষয়বস্তু বিয়োগ হয়েছে বিষয়বস্তু যোগ হয়েছে
MerlIwBot (আলোচনা | অবদান)
Shafaet (আলোচনা | অবদান)
৪৭ নং লাইন:
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
<!--Note: If this heading is changed, update [[Template:Syn]].-->{{policy shortcut|WP:SYN|WP:SYNTH|WP:SYNTHESIS}}
Doএকাধিক notউৎসথেকে combineতথ্য materialনিয়ে fromনিজে multipleএমন sourcesকোনো toসিদ্বান্ত reachপ্রদান orকরবেননা implyযা aকোনো conclusionউৎসে notসরাসরি explicitlyবলা statedহয়নি। byএকটি anyনির্ভরযোগ্য ofউৎস theযদি sources.বলে If one reliable source says A"ক", and another reliable source says B,আরেকটি doনির্ভরযোগ্য notউৎস joinযদি Aবলে and"খ" Bতাহলে together"ক" toএবং imply"খ" aমিলিয়ে conclusionআরেকটি Cসিদ্ধান্ত that"গ" isপ্রদান notকরবেননা mentionedযা byদুটি eitherউৎসের ofকোনোটায় theবলা sources.নেই। This would be a ''synthesis'' of published material to advance a new position, which is '''original research'''.<ref>Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/017591.html "Original research"], December 6, 2004)</ref> "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable ''only if'' a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
 
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly.