විකිපීඩියා:සත්‍යෝක්ෂ්‍යතාව

විකිපීඩියා, නිදහස් විශ්වකෝෂය වෙතින්
(විකිපීඩියා:සත්‍යක්ෂ්‍යතාව වෙතින් යළි-යොමු කරන ලදි)
වෙත පනින්න: සංචලනය, සොයන්න
විශේෂිත මූලාශ්‍ර පිළිබඳ සාකච්ඡා කිරීමට, විශ්වසනීය මූලාශ්‍ර දැන්වීම් පුවරුව. වන්ධල්‍යය සඳහා, WP:වන්ධ බලන්න. පෙරනිමි විකිපීඩියා ඡවිය සඳහා, WP:වෙක්ටර් බලන්න.
Nutshell.png මෙම ලිපියේ අන්තර්ගතයේ පිණ්ඩාර්ථය: ඔබ හුදෙක් යම් දේ ප්‍රබන්ධ කරනවාදැයි අනෙක් අයට පරික්ෂා කර බැලීමට හැකි විය යුතුයි. මෙයින් ගම්‍ය වන්නේ සියළු උපුටා දැක්වීම් සහ අභියෝගයට ලක්වූ හෝ අභියෝගයට ලක් වීමට අවකාශ සහිත වන හෝ ඕනෑම විෂය කරුණක් පිළිබඳ වගකීම, පේළිගත උපහරණයක් භාවිතයෙන් විශ්වසනීය, ප්‍රකාශිත මූලාශ්‍රයක් වෙතපැවරීම කල යුතු වෙයි.

විකිපීඩියාවෙහි, සත්‍යෝක්ෂ්‍යතාව යන්නෙන් ගම්‍ය වන්නේ එහි පාඨකයන්ට සහ සංස්කාරකවරුන් හට විශ්වකෝෂයෙහි තොරතුරු පැමිණ ඇත්තේ විශ්වසනීය මූලාශ්‍රයකින්ද යන බව පරික්ෂා කල හැකි බවය. විකිපීඩියාව විසින් හුදු චින්තන ප්‍රකාශයට පත් නොකෙරේ. එහි අන්තර්ගතය සමාපනය කෙරෙන්නේ පෙරදී ප්‍රකාශිත තොරතුරු වලින් මිස එහි සංස්කාරකවරුන්ගේ පුද්ගලික මති මතාන්තර වලින් හෝ ඔවුන්ගේ අත්දැකීම් වලින් හෝ නොවෙති. යමක් සත්‍ය බවට ඔබ හට නිසැක වුවද, එය එක් කිරීමට පෙර සත්‍යෝක්ෂණය කල හැකි විය යුතු වෙයි.

විකිපීඩියාව තුල අඩංගු සියළු තෙරතුරු සත්‍යාපනකලහැකි වියයුතු වුවද, අනෙකුත් ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ මාර්ගෝපදේශන බලපැවැත්වෙන බැවින් , සත්‍යාපනකලහැකිබව does not guarantee inclusion. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable.සැකිල්ල:Underdiscussion-inline

It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.[1] Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

When a reliable source is required[සංස්කරණය]

Anything challenged or likely to be challenged[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:CHALLENGE
WP:CHALLENGED
WP:FULLCITE

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Burden of evidence[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:BURDEN
WP:UNSOURCED

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]

Reliable sources[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මග:
WP:SOURCES

What counts as a reliable source[සංස්කරණය]

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. 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. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Newspaper and magazine blogs[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මග:
WP:NEWSBLOG

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS [සංස්කරණය]

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the 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[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:NOTRELIABLE
WP:NOTRS
WP:QS

Questionable sources[සංස්කරණය]

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.[5] Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Self-published sources[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:SPS
WP:SELFPUBLISH
WP:BLOGS

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then 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, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[6] 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.

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:ABOUTSELF
WP:SELFPUB
WP:TWITTER
WP:SOCIALMEDIA

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මග:
WP:CIRCULAR

Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, do not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing. Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.

Accessibility[සංස්කරණය]

Access to sources[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:PAYWALL
WP:SOURCEACCESS
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, Wikipedia:Offline sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. 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. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material.

Non-English sources[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:NOENG
WP:NONENG
See also: Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

  • When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.
  • When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.[7]

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. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Other issues[සංස්කරණය]

Tagging a sentence, section, or article[සංස්කරණය]

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates are available here for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting 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 {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{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.

Special care should be used in regard to material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources[සංස්කරණය]

ප්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටි මගs:
WP:REDFLAG
WP:EXCEPTIONAL

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[8] 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 primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[5]
  • 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 to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles[සංස්කරණය]

Copyright and plagiarism[සංස්කරණය]

Take care to avoid plagiarism and breaches of copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be cited. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable 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 believe that a source is in violation of copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Neutrality[සංස්කරණය]

All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an 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 present what the reliable sources say.

Notability[සංස්කරණය]

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Original research[සංස්කරණය]

The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

  1. 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.
  2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[7]
  3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

See also[සංස්කරණය]

Notes[සංස්කරණය]

  1. See the section Using sources of the policy No original research, that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.
  2. It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.
  3. Wales, Jimmy. "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."
  4. 4.0 4.1 Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources
  5. 5.0 5.1 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 those 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 Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, Columbia University mentions: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse -- actual, apparent, or potential -- 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."
    • The New York Times Company forwards this understanding: "Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may arise in many areas. They may involve tensions between journalists' professional obligations to our audience and their relationships with news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another; or with the company or one of its units. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, household members and other relatives can create conflicts or the appearance of them."
  6. Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. 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 electoral manifestos:
    • The 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."
    • 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 Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states that "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
  7. 7.0 7.1 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.
  8. Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Forgotten Books, 1984; first published 1748, p. 86: "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."

Further reading[සංස්කරණය]

  • Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.