|
‘প্রকাশিত’ শব্দটি দ্বারা প্রচলিত অর্থে কাগজে মুদ্রিত প্রকাশনা, এবং ইন্টারনেটে প্রকাশিত কোনো লেখাকে বোঝানো হয়। এছাড়া অডিও, ভিডিও, এবং অন্যান্য মাল্টিমিডিয়া প্রকাশনা, যা গ্রহণযোগ্য তৃতীয়-পক্ষীয় উৎস থেকে প্রকাশিত বা প্রচারিত হয়, এবং প্রযোজ্য ক্ষেত্রে প্রয়োজনীয় শর্তসমূহ পূরণ করে তাও গ্রহণযোগ্য ও নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস হিসেবে বিবেচিত হবে। লিখিত উৎসের মতো মিডিয়া (চিত্র, ভিডিও ইত্যাদি) উৎসও নির্ভরযোগ্য তৃতীয়-পক্ষীয় উৎস দ্বারা নির্মিত বা প্রচারিত, এবং যথাযথভাবে উৎস নির্দেশ করতে হবে। সেই সাথে মিডিয়ার একটি আর্কাইভড কপিও থাকা চাই। এটি প্রয়োজনীয় কিন্তু এটি নিশ্চিত করা চাই যে, এই আর্কাইভড কপিটি ইন্টারনেটের মাধ্যমে যাচাই করা সম্ভব।
== উৎসের প্রকারভেদ ==
{{shortcut|WP:SOURCETYPES}}
{{See|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion}}
উইকিপিডিয়ার অনেক নিবন্ধ সূত্র হিসেবে বিভিন্ন জ্ঞানগর্ভ প্রকাশনার ওপর নির্ভর করে লিখিত। প্রাপ্তি সাপেক্ষে প্রাতিষ্ঠানিক ও পিয়ার রিভিউড প্রকাশনাগুলো সচারচর সূত্র হিসেবে সবচেয়ে বেশি নির্ভরযোগ্য। তাছাড়া কিছু নির্ভরযোগ্য জ্ঞানগর্ভ বা পাণ্ডিত্যপূর্ণ প্রকাশনাও মেয়াদউত্তীর্ণ হতে পারে, বা বিপরীত কোনো তত্ত্বের বা বিতর্কের কারণে সাম্প্রতিক কোনো গবেষণা দ্বারা প্রতিস্থাপিত হতে পারে। এসকল ক্ষেত্রে তাঁদের নিজেদের ঐকমত্যের সিদ্ধান্ত সূত্র হিসেবে দেওয়ার চেষ্টা করুন। কিছু জ্ঞানগর্ভ নিবন্ধের ক্ষেত্রেও নির্ভরযোগ্য অপ্রাতিষ্ঠানিক সূত্র নিবন্ধে ব্যবহৃত হতে পারে। নির্দিষ্ট করে উল্লেখ করতে গেলে এগুলো হচ্ছে মানসম্পন্ন মূলধারার প্রকাশনাগুলো। কোনো একটি ক্ষেত্রে কোন সূত্রটি যথাযথ তা নির্ভর করে ঐ সংশ্লিষ্ট বিষয়ের ওপর। কোথাও সূত্র দ্বিমত পোষণ করলে তা লিখিত আকারে দিতে হবে। Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed in-text]] where [[WP:ASF|sources disagree]].
{{shortcut|WP:SCHOLARSHIP}}
* Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
* Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
* Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
* One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in [[citation index]]es. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
* Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and [[wikt:abstruse|abstruse]] fields, such as [[medicine]], are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as [[meta-analysis|meta-analyses]], textbooks, and scholarly [[review articles]] are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
* <span id="QUESTIONABLEJOURNAL"> </span>Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.<ref group=notes>Examples include ''The Creation Research Society Quarterly'' and ''Journal of Frontier Science'' (the latter uses [http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com blog comments as peer review]).</ref>
* {{anchor|Predatory journals}}In recent years there has been an explosion in new journals of very low quality that have only token peer-review if any (see [[predatory journals]]). They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see [[hijacked journals]]).<ref>{{cite web |last=Beall |first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall |date=December 1, 2012 |title=Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers |edition=2nd |publisher=Scholarly Open Access |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/}}</ref><ref name=NYT4713>{{cite news |last=Kolata |first=Gina |authorlink=Gina Kolata |date=April 7, 2013 |title=Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too) |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html |accessdate=April 11, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Nature032713>{{cite news |last=Butler |first=Declan |date=March 28, 2013 |title=Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees |newspaper=Nature |volume=495 |pages=421–422 |url=http://www.nature.com/news/sham-journals-scam-authors-1.12681 |accessdate=April 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |authorlink=John Bohannon |date=4 October 2013 |title=Who's afraid of peer review? |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html|title=Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals|first=Gina|last=Kolata|date=30 October 2017|publisher=|accessdate=2 November 2017|via=www.nytimes.com}}</ref> The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected [[Higher education accreditation|accredited university]], and that it is included in the relevant high-quality [[citation index]] -- be weary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list.
===News organizations===
{{shortcut|WP:NEWSORG}}
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from [[News agency|news agencies]] such as [[BBC News]], [[Reuters]], [[Interfax]], [[Agence France-Presse]], [[United Press International]] or the [[Associated Press]], which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.
Editorial commentary, analysis and [[opinion piece]]s, whether written by the editors of the publication ([[editorial]]s) or outside authors ([[op-ed]]s) are reliable primary sources for [[WP:INTEXT|statements attributed to that editor or author]], but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. [[Human interest story|Human interest reporting]] is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see [[junk food news]]).<ref>{{cite news |last=Miller |first=Laura |date=October 16, 2011 |title='Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |publisher=Salon Media Group |url=https://www.salon.com/2011/10/16/sybil_exposed_memory_lies_and_therapy/ |accessdate=October 17, 2011 |quote=[Debbie Nathan] also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.'}}</ref>
* When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.<ref group=notes>Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional sources]], and this is policy.</ref> If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.<ref name="Princeton">{{cite web |year=2011 |title=Book reviews |publisher=Princeton |work=Scholarly definition document |url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review |accessdate=September 22, 2011}}</ref><ref name="VirginiaTech">{{cite web |year=2011 |title=Book reviews |publisher=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |work=Scholarly definition document |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |accessdate=September 22, 2011}}</ref>
* Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. With regard to biomedical articles, see also [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]].
* The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information ''about'' rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). [[WP:NOTGOSSIP|Wikipedia is not the place]] for passing along gossip and rumors.
* Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular sourcing]].<ref group=notes>A variety of these incidents have been documented by ''[[Private Eye]]'' and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] or otherwise have appeared in newspapers</ref>
* Whether a ''specific'' news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
* Multiple sources should not be asserted for any [[List of wire services|wire service]] article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
* Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.
* One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of [[correction (newspaper)|corrections]].
===<span id="E-commerce sources"></span>Vendor and e-commerce sources===
Although the content guidelines for [[WP:EL|external links]] prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to [[WP:VERIFY|verify]] such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.
Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:
# It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking;
# When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable third-party source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.
For such reasons such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.
===Biased or opinionated sources===
{{See also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources|Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources}}
{{shortcut|WP:BIASED}}
Wikipedia articles are required to present a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific [[#Context matters|context]]. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] to the source, as in "Feminist [[Betty Friedan]] wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist [[Harry Magdoff]]...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate [[Barry Goldwater]] believed that...".
== {{anchor|Self-published and questionable sources}}Questionable and self-published sources ==
| 