উইকিপিডিয়া:যাচাইযোগ্যতা: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

বিষয়বস্তু বিয়োগ হয়েছে বিষয়বস্তু যোগ হয়েছে
সম্পাদনা সারাংশ নেই
১৫ নং লাইন:
উইকিপিডিয়ায় পরিবেশিত তথ্যের প্রকৃতি কেমন হবে, সে ব্যাপারে '''তিনটি''' প্রধান নীতি আছে, যাদের একটি হল [[উইকিপিডিয়া:যাচাইযোগ্যতা]]। এ-সম্পর্কিত অন্য দু'টি প্রধান নীতি হল [[উইকিপিডিয়া:নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি]] এবং [[উইকিপিডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]]। মূলনীতি তিনটি একে অপরের পরিপূরক এবং সে-ভাবেই এগুলোকে জানতে হবে, বিছিন্নভাবে নয়। তাই সম্পাদকদের এই তিনটি মুলনীতি সম্পর্কেই যথাযথ ধারণা অর্জন করতে হবে।
 
==উদ্ধৃতির প্রদানের দায়িত্ব==
==প্রমাণের দায়ভার==
{{policy shortcut|WP:UNSOURCED|WP:CHALLENGE|WP:BURDEN|WP:PROVEIT}}
{{Redirect|WP:PROVEIT|the editing tool|Wikipedia:ProveIt}}
 
{{anchor|Burden|Burden of evidence}}All content must be verifiable. The '''burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.<ref>Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., [[WP:DUE|undue emphasis]] on a minor point, [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]], etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.</ref>
{{divbox
|green|I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.--Jimmy Wales|<ref>{{cite web|title="Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"|publisher=WikiEN-l [[electronic mailing list]] archive|author=Jimmy Wales|date=2006-05-16|accessdate=2006-06-11|url=http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html}}</ref>}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN|WP:PROVEIT|WP:UNSOURCED|WP:BOP}}
:''For how to write citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]''
The '''burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'''.<ref>This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to provide a citation to the source of the statement.</ref> All quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.<ref>When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.</ref> If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 
{{anchor|Unsourced}}Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' to a reliable, published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See [[WP:Citing sources|Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been [[WP:PRESERVE|good practice]] to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.
 
{{anchor|Challenge}}Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tag as an interim step.<ref>It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{tl|unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{tl|refimprove}} or {{tl|unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.</ref> When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.<ref>When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.</ref> If you think the material is verifiable, [[WP:PRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before considering whether to remove or tag it.
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{tl|citation needed}} template, a section with {{tl|unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{tl|refimprove}} or {{tl|unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page. Do ''not'' leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.<ref>As Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).</ref>
 
Do ''not'' leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[WP:BLP|living people]]<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">[[Jimmy Wales|Wales, Jimmy]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref> or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_persons_and_groups|BLP policy applies to groups]].
===Tagging a sentence, section, or article===
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{tl|citation needed}} template&mdash;write {{tl|cn}} or {{tl|fact}}. Other templates are available [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources|here]] for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] requesting a source, or move the material there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{tl|verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{tl|failed verification}} or removed.
 
==<span id="{{anchor|WP:SOURCES" /><span}} id="উৎস"নির্ভরযোগ্য />উৎস==
{{policy shortcut|WP:SOURCE|WP:SOURCES}}
{{Redirects here|WP:SOURCE|the <code>&lt;source&gt;</code> tag|Wikipedia:Syntaxhighlight|how to reference sources|Help:Referencing for beginners}}
:{{see also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}
 
===What counts as a reliable source===
===<span id="নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস" /><span id="Reliable sources" />নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস===
{{see|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources}}
উইকিপিডিয়াতে উৎসের ৩ রকম অর্থ আছেঃ
The word "source" ''when citing sources on Wikipedia'' has three related meanings:
* কাজটির নমুনা, যেমন বই,প্রবন্ধ,গবেষণাপত্র ইত্যাদি
* কাজটির স্রষ্টা (যেমন লেখক,গায়ক)
৪১ ⟶ ৩৯ নং লাইন:
এই ৩টি জিনিস তথ্যের গ্রহণযোগ্যতা বৃদ্ধি করে।
 
প্রবন্ধগুলোতে নির্ভরযোগ্য ৩য় পক্ষের তথ্য উৎস থাকা প্রয়োজন যাদের নির্ভুল এবং নিরপেক্ষ তথ্য প্রদানের জন্য সুনাম রয়েছে। প্রবন্ধকে মানসম্মত করতে নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস প্রয়োজন। [[WP:CITE|citations]]Source arematerial neededmust tohave directbeen '''published''', the readerdefinition toof thosewhich sourcesfor toour givepurposes is "made creditavailable to the writerspublic andin publishers.some form".<ref>This avoidsincludes [[Wikipedia:plagiarism|plagiarism]]material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, [[Wikipedia:Copyrightinscriptions violations|copyrighton violations]]monuments, andgravestones, unverifiableetc., claimsthat beingare addedavailable for anyone to articlessee.</ref> Sources'''Unpublished''' shouldmaterials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should beare appropriate to the claims made:. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#ExceptionalThe claimsappropriateness requireof exceptionalany source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing [[WP:BLP|exceptionalcontent claimsrelated to living people]] requireor high-quality sources[[WP:MEDRS|medicine]].
 
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]].
 
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality policy]], fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in [[WP:UNDUE|rough proportion]] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
* University-level textbooks
* Books published by respected publishing houses
* Magazines
* Journals
* Mainstream newspapers
 
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in ''[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] and [[Wikipedia:Search engine test]]''.
To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]]. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular ''types'' of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]], but note that in the case of inconsistency between this page and that one, this policy has priority.
 
===Newspaper and magazine blogs===
===<span id="স্বপ্রকাশিত উৎস" /><span id="SELFPUBLISH" /><span id="SPS" /><span id="TWITTER" /><span id="V#SELF" />স্বপ্রকাশিত উৎস===
{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}}
<!-- Be aware when editing the section title, that there is a policy shortcut to this. Please change the shortcut's path when this title is changed. Thank you. -->
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host [[WP:PRIMARY|columns]] on their web sites that they call [[blog]]s. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]].</ref> If a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use as sources the blog comments that are left by readers. For personal or group blogs that are ''not'' reliable sources, see [[#Self-published sources|Self-published sources]] below.
{{policy shortcut|WP:SELFPUBLISH|WP:SPS|WP:TWITTER|WP:V#SELF}}
Anyone can create a website or [[vanity press|pay to have a book published]], then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.<ref>"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/29/rod-liddle-pcc-spectator "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC"], ''The Guardian'', March 30, 2010). Where a news organization publishes an [[opinion piece]] but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.</ref>
 
===Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS {{anchor|Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS guideline}}===
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by '''reliable third-party publications'''. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
{{see|Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources}}
To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]], which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular ''types'' of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the [[WP:IRS]] guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.
 
==Sources that are usually not reliable==
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]].
{{see also|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:NOTRELIABLE|WP:NOTRS|WP:QS}}
===Questionable sources===
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.<ref name="COI SOURCES">Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources. Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors; news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors; material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications) involved in or struck down by litigation in any country, or released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation; and promotional material released through media in the form of paid news reports. For definitions of sources with conflict of interest:
* The [http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_conflicts/foundation/index.html Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, Columbia University] mentions: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse&nbsp;– actual, apparent, or potential&nbsp;– of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood. It is also important to note that a conflict of interest is not considered misconduct in research, since the definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism."
* [http://www.nytco.com/wp-content/uploads/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904-1.pdf The New York Times Company] forwards this understanding: "Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may come up in many areas. They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, family and companions can create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts."
</ref>
Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on ''themselves'', such as in articles about themselves; see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.
 
==={{anchor|Self-published sources (online and paper)|SELF}}Self-published sources===
===সন্দেহজনক উৎস===
<!-- Be aware when editing the section title, that there is a policy shortcut to this.-->
সন্দেহজনক উৎস হলো সেই উৎস যা সঠিক সম্পাদকীয় দৃষ্টির দিক দিয়ে খুবই দুর্বল। Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]].) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->
{{policy shortcut|WP:SPS|WP:SELFPUBLISH|WP:BLOGS}}
{{see|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources|Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies}}
Anyone can create a [[personal web page]] or [[self-publishing|publish their own book]], and also [[WP:Expert editors|claim to be an expert]] in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from [[#Newspaper and magazine blogs|newsblogs]], above), [[content farm]]s, [[Internet forum]] postings, and [[social media]] postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL"/> Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].<ref>Self-published material is characterized by the ''lack of independent reviewers'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and [[manifesto|electoral manifestos]]:
* The [http://library.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html University of California, Berkeley library] states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
* [http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other/ Princeton University] offers this understanding in its publication, ''Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011)'': "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
* The [http://library.stkate.edu/pdf/citeChicago.pdf Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition] states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."</ref>
'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
 
===<span{{anchor|Self-published id="SELFPUB"and />questionable sources as sources on themselves}}Self-published andor questionable sources as sources on themselves===
{{redirect|WP:SOCIALMEDIA|the policy on what Wikipedia is not|WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK}}
 
{{redirect|WP:TWITTER|the external links essay|WP:Twitter-EL}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:SELFPUB}}
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. (This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]) -->
 
{{policy shortcut|WP:ABOUTSELF|WP:SELFPUB|WP:TWITTER|WP:SOCIALMEDIA}}
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 
# the material is notneither unduly self-serving nor an [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional claim]];
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subjectsource;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 
This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as [[Twitter]], [[Tumblr]], [[Reddit]], and [[Facebook]].
=== Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:CIRCULAR}}
{{see also|WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT}}
 
===Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it===
Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|mirror its content]], should not be used as sources, as this would amount to Wikipedia citing itself, a self-reference. As an exception, Wikipedia may be cited as a [[primary source]] (with caution) for information about itself, such as in articles about itself.
{{policy shortcut|WP:CIRC|WP:CIRCULAR|WP:REFLOOP}}
{{Redirect|WP:CIRCULAR|links on a page that refer back to the same page|Wikipedia:Redirect#Self-redirects}}
{{See also|WP:COPYWITHIN|Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents}}
Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|mirror Wikipedia content]] or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Ole Bjørn|last1=Rekdal|title=Academic urban legends|url=http://sss.sagepub.com/content/44/4/638|journal=Social Studies of Science|date=1 August 2014|issn=0306-3127|pages=638–654|volume=44|issue=4|doi=10.1177/0306312714535679|accessdate=30 April 2016}}</ref> (There is also a risk of [[circular reference]]/[[circular reporting]] when using a Wikipedia article or derivative work as a source.)
 
An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a [[primary source]] in this case, and may be used following the [[wp:PRIMARY|policy for primary sources]]. Any such use should avoid [[WP:OR|original research]], [[WP:UNDUE|undue emphasis]] on Wikipedia's role or views, and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid|inappropriate self-reference]]. The article text should make it clear that the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is made aware of the potential bias.
Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating ''from'' Wikipedia to support that same material ''in'' Wikipedia, as this would create [[circular reference|circular sourcing]]&mdash;Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia.
 
==Accessibility==
=== Non-English sources ===
===Access to sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:VUE|WP:NONENG}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:PAYWALL|WP:SOURCEACCESS}}
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When '''quoting''' a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When '''citing''' a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text|fair-use guideline]].
{{Seealso|Wikipedia:Offline sources|Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost}}
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request|WikiProject Resource Exchange]]).
 
==Exceptional claims require exceptional=Non-English sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAGRSUE|WP:NOENG|WP:NONENG}}
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Translators available|Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Fringe theories}}
====Citing non-English sources====
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the [[English Wikipedia]]. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.<ref name=Courtesy/> (See [[Template:Request quotation]].)
 
====Quoting non-English sources====
Certain '''[[Red flag (signal)|red flag]]s''' should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.
* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] to silence them.
 
In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|violate copyright]]; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Text|fair-use guideline]].
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.<ref>This idea&mdash;that exceptional claims require exceptional sources&mdash;has an intellectual history which traces back through [[the Enlightenment]]. In 1758, [[David Hume]] wrote in ''[[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding]]'': "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8echu10h.htm#mnum91]</ref> If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] and the [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] provision of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
 
==Other issues==
==<span id="SOURCEACCESS" /><span id="PAYWALL" />Access to sources==
===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===
{{policy shortcut|WP:Access to sources|WP:SOURCEACCESS|WP:PAYWALL}}
{{See also|WP:UNDUE|WP:PAGEDECIDE|WP:PRESERVE|WP:SUMMARY}}
Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|WikiProject Resource Exchange]] may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.
{{shortcut|WP:VNOTSUFF|WP:ONUS}}
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. [[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or [[WP:PRESERVE|presented instead in a different article]]. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
 
===Tagging a sentence, section, or article===
==See also==
{{see|Wikipedia:Citation needed|Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles}}
{{shortcut|WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION}}
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{tl|citation needed}} template by writing {{tl|cn}} or {{tl|fact}}. There are other templates [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources|here]] for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{tl|verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{tl|failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.
 
Take special care with [[WP:BLP|material about living people]]. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page.
 
===Exceptional claims require exceptional sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAG|WP:EXCEPTIONAL|WP:EXTRAORDINARY}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Fringe theories}}
Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources.<ref>[[David Hume|Hume, David]]. [http://books.google.com/books?id=H1rKYw9SnTgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA86 ''An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding''], Forgotten Books, 1984, pp. 82, 86; first published in 1748 as ''Philosophical enquiries concerning human Understanding'', (or the Oxford 1894 edition {{OL|7067396M}} at para. 91) "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence. ... That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior." In the 18th century, [[Pierre-Simon Laplace]] reformulated the idea as "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." [[Marcello Truzzi]] recast it again, in 1978, as "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." [[Carl Sagan]], finally, popularized the concept broadly as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in 1980 on ''[[Cosmos: A Personal Voyage]]''; this was the formulation originally used on Wikipedia.</ref>
[[Red flag (idiom)|Red flags]] that should prompt extra caution include:
* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
* challenged claims that are supported purely by [[WP:Primary|primary]] or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;<ref name="COI SOURCES"/>
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] to silence them.
 
==Verifiability and other principles==
===Copyright and plagiarism===
{{policy shortcut|WP:YTCOPYRIGHT}}
{{see|Wikipedia:Copyright|Wikipedia:Plagiarism|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution|Wikipedia:CITE#In-text attribution}}
Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]], and [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] where appropriate.
 
Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works|contributors' rights and obligations]]. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered [[contributory copyright infringement]]. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. ''This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as [[Scribd]] or [[YouTube]], where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.''
 
===Neutrality===
{{see|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view}}
Even when information is cited to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], you must present it with a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in [[WP:UNDUE|rough proportion]] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]]: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]]. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are ''not'' neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.
 
===Notability===
* [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]], an essay with a summary of these policies and their brief history
* [[{{see|Wikipedia:List of free online resources]]Notability}}
If no reliable [[Wikipedia:Third-party sources|third-party sources]] can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
* [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]], a guideline
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|WikiProject Resource Exchange]]
* [[Wikipedia:When to cite]], an essay
 
===Original research===
==Notes==
{{see|Wikipedia:No original research}}
{{reflist}}
The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
#All material in Wikipedia articles must be ''attributable'' to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
#Sources must support the material clearly and directly: [[WP:SYN|drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position]] is prohibited by the NOR policy.<ref name=Courtesy>When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.</ref>
#Base articles largely on reliable [[secondary source]]s. While [[primary source]]s are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]] section of the NOR policy, and the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources|Misuse of primary sources]] section of the BLP policy.
 
==আরও দেখুন==
১৩৩ ⟶ ১৮৬ নং লাইন:
==পাদটীকা==
<references/>
==বহির্সংযোগ==
 
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
১৩৯ ⟶ ১৯১ নং লাইন:
[[Category:উইকিপিডিয়া নীতিমালা ও নির্দেশাবলী]]
[[Category:উইকিপিডিয়া নীতিমালা]]
 
<!-- interwiki -->
 
[[ur:ویکیپیڈیا قابل ِتثبیت]]