উইকিপিডিয়া

উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

ইতিহাস ব্রাউজ করুন
← পূর্বের পার্থক্যপরবর্তী পার্থক্য →
বিষয়বস্তু বিয়োগ হয়েছে বিষয়বস্তু যোগ হয়েছে
দৃশ্যমানউইকিপাঠ্য
Jayantanth (আলোচনা | অবদান)
১৯,৫১২টি সম্পাদনা
Jayantanth (আলোচনা | অবদান)
১৯,৫১২টি সম্পাদনা
১১৩ নং লাইন:
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 
== Reliability in specific contexts ==
=== Biographies of living persons ===
{{main|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#SourcesReliable sources}}
 
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons,. forContentious legalmaterial reasonsabout anda inliving orderperson tothat be fair. Removeis unsourced or poorly sourced contentiousshould materialbe removed immediately if it is about a living person, and; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on ''any'' page in ''any'' [[উইকিপিডিয়াWikipedia:Namespace|namespace]], not just article space.
 
=== Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources ===
{{main|Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}
 
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable '''[[WP:Secondary|secondary sources''']], i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
 
{{shortcut|WP:WPNOTRS}}
'''Tertiary sources''' such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources and should not be used as sources within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of such articles be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.
Reputable [[WP:Tertiary|tertiary sources]], such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. {{anchor|Wikipedia is not a reliable source}}However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, '''Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose''' (except as sources on themselves per [[WP:SELFSOURCE]]). Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else.
 
'''[[WP:Primary|Primary sources''', on the other hand,]] are often difficult to use appropriately. WhileAlthough they can be both reliable and useful in manycertain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid [[WPWikipedia:ORNo original research|original research]]. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 
When editing articles and the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{tl|primary source-inline}} and {{tl|better source}}, or article templates, such as {{tl|primary sources}} and {{tl|refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.
=== উক্তি ===
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount; the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration.
 
===Medical claims===
It is important to [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT|make clear the actual source of the text as it appears in the article]].
{{shortcut|WP:RS/MC}}
{{main|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)}}
Ideal sources for '''biomedical assertions''' include [[literature review|general]] or [[systematic review]]s in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable [[medical journal]]s, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or [[medical guideline]]s and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is ''vital'' that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.
 
=== Academic consensus Quotations===
{{see|MOS:QUOTE}}
The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on [[WP:SYNTH|novel syntheses of disparate material]]. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.▼
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT|make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article]].
 
Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.
=== Usage by other sources ===▼
How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.▼
 
Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: [[WP:No original research]]).
=== Statements of opinion ===▼
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.▼
 
===Academic consensus===
Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.▼
{{Shortcut|WP:RS/AC}}
▲TheA statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Withoutthat adirectly reliable sourcesays that claimsall aor consensusmost existsscientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on [[WP:SYNTH|novel syntheses of disparate material]]. TheStated reliablesimply, sourceany needsstatement toin claimWikipedia therethat is aacademic consensus, ratherexists thanon thea Wikipediatopic editor.must Forbe example,sourced evenrather ifthan everybeing scholarlybased reliableon sourcethe locatedopinion statesor thatassessment theof skyeditors. is[[Review bluearticle]]s, itespecially wouldthose beprinted improperin synthesisacademic toreview writejournals that there is a scientific consensus thatsurvey the sky is blueliterature, unlesscan sourceshelp citedclarify alsoacademic make such a claimconsensus.
 
▲=== Usage by other sources ===
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: '''Never use [[Self-publishing|self-published]] books, [[zine]]s, websites, webforums, [[blog]]s and [[twitter|tweets]] as a source for material about a living person,''' unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see [[WP:BLP#Sources]] and [[WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source]].▼
{{Shortcut|WP:USEBYOTHERS}}
▲How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whilewhereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.
 
▲=== Statements of opinion ===
=== অন্য উদাহরণ ===
{{Shortcut|WP:RSOPINION}}
See [[উইকিপিডিয়া:Reliable source examples]] for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, business and commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.
▲Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements ofasserted as fact. withoutFor attribution.example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this areis Op-ed[[opinion columnspiece]]s in mainstreamsources newspapers.recognized These areas reliable. sources, depending on context, but whenWhen using them, it is betterbest to clearly attribute the materialopinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.
 
▲Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" -style format for some or all of itstheir content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.
 
▲There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact ''or'' opinion: '''Never use [[Self-publishing|self-published]] books, [[zine]]s, websites, webforums, [[blog]]s and [[twitter|tweets]] as a source for material about a living person,''' unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see [[WP:BLP#SourcesReliable sources]] and [[WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source]].
 
===Breaking news===
{{Shortcut|WP:RSBREAKING}}
{{Further|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Breaking news}}
Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but [[Wikipedia:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]] and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The ''[[On the Media]]'' [http://www.onthemedia.org/story/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-pdf/ Breaking News Consumer's Handbook] contains several suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as distrusting anonymous sources, distrusting unconfirmed reports and those attributed to other news media, seeking multiple sources, seeking eyewitness reports, being wary of potential hoaxes, and being skeptical of reports of possible additional attackers in mass shootings.
 
Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per [[WP:PSTS]].
 
When editing articles covering current events, also keep in mind the essay on [[Wikipedia:Recentism|recentism bias]].
 
{{tl|current}}, {{tl|recent death}}, or other [[Wikipedia:Current event templates|current event-related templates]] may be added to the top of articles concerning breaking news, to alert readers that some information may be inaccurate, and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. Keep in mind, however, that these current event-related templates are not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence (see also [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]]).
 
== আরও দেখুন ==
'https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য_উৎস' থেকে আনীত