উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য
বিষয়বস্তু বিয়োগ হয়েছে বিষয়বস্তু যোগ হয়েছে
Jayantanth (আলোচনা | অবদান) + |
Jayantanth (আলোচনা | অবদান) + |
||
১ নং লাইন:
{{PGen}}
{{subcat guideline|নীতিমালা ও নির্দেশাবলী|নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস|WP:IRS|WP:RS|WP:RELY|WP:RELIABLE}}
{{nutshell|কীভাবে নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস নিরুপণ করতে হয়, সে সম্পর্কিত নির্দেশনা এই পাতায় আলোচনাকৃত হয়েছে। এই নীতিমালাটি এসেছে [[উইকিপিডিয়া:যাচাইযোগ্যতা|যাচাইযোগ্যতা]] থেকে, যার জন্য প্রয়োজন [[উইকিপিডিয়া:উৎসনির্দেশ|নির্দিষ্ট লাইনে উৎসনির্দেশ]] করা। চ্যালেঞ্জ করা যায়, বা করা হয়, এবং সকল প্রকার উদ্ধৃতির জন্য উৎসনির্দেশ করা বাধ্যতামূলক।}}{{নীতিমালা তালিকা}}
৩১ ⟶ ৩০ নং লাইন:
==স্বপ্রকাশিত উৎস==
{{main|Wikipedia:Verifiability}}
==চরমপন্থী ও প্রান্তীক উৎস==
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. 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. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.
===Self-published sources (online and paper)===
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, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or [[Twitter|tweets]]—are largely not acceptable.
"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 professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
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'''. 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]].
===Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves===
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:
# the material is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
==Reliability in specific contexts==
===Biographies of living persons===
{{main|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources}}
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material 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'' [[Wikipedia: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 '''secondary sources'''.
'''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.
'''Primary sources''', on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid [[WP:OR|original research]].
===Quotations===
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.
It is important to [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT|make clear the actual source of the text as it appears in the article]].
===Academic consensus===
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.
===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.
===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.
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.
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]].
===Other examples===
See [[Wikipedia: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.
==আরও দেখুন==
| |||