|
ৱিকিপিডিয়া:নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্য উৎস
ৱিকিপিডিয়াৰ প্ৰবন্ধসমূহ নিৰপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভংগীত (ৱিকিপিডিয়া:নিৰপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভংগী চাওক) প্ৰকাশিত নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্য, প্ৰকাশিত উৎসৰ ওপৰত ভিত্তি কৰি হ'ব লাগে। যদি কোনো বিষয়ৰ ওপৰত নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্য উৎস বিচাৰি পোৱা নাযায়, তেন্তে ৱিকিপিডিয়াত সেই বিষয়ত কোনো প্ৰবন্ধ থাকিব নালাগে। এই পথনিৰ্দেশিকাত বিভিন্ন ধৰণৰ উৎসৰ নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্যতাৰ বিষয়ে আলোচনা কৰা হৈছে। উৎস উল্লেখৰ মূলনীতি হৈছে বিশ্বাসযোগ্যতা, য'ত প্ৰত্যাহ্বান জনোৱা বা প্ৰত্যাহ্বান জনোৱাৰ সম্ভাৱনা থকা যিকোনো সামগ্ৰীৰ বাবে আৰু সকলো উদ্ধৃতিৰ বাবে বাক্যভুক্ত বিৱৰণৰ প্ৰয়োজন হয়। বিশ্বাসযোগ্যতাৰ নীতি মূল স্থানৰ সকলো সমলৰ ক্ষেত্ৰত— প্ৰবন্ধ, তালিকা আৰু প্ৰবন্ধৰ কোনো অংশত— কোনো ব্যতিক্ৰম নোহোৱাকৈ কঠোৰভাৱে প্ৰয়োগ কৰা হয়, আৰু বিশেষকৈ জীৱিত ব্যক্তিৰ জীৱনীৰ ক্ষেত্ৰত, য'ত কোৱা হৈছে:
এই নিৰ্দেশনা আৰু উৎসৰ উল্লেখ সম্পৰ্কীয় নীতিৰ মাজত বৈপৰীত্যৰ সৃষ্টি হ'লে নীতিসমূহে অগ্ৰাধিকাৰ লাভ কৰে আৰু সম্পাদকসকলে আলোচনাৰ মাধ্যমেৰে মতবিৰোধ সমাধান কৰিব লাগে। উৎসৰ লগত সম্পৰ্কীত আন নীতিসমূহ হ'ল ৱিকিপিডিয়া:মৌলিক গৱেষণাৰহিত লেখা আৰু ৱিকিপিডিয়া:জীৱিত ব্যক্তিৰ জীৱনী। উৎসৰ নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্যতাৰ বিষয়ে প্ৰশ্নৰ বাবে ৱিকিপিডিয়া:নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্য উৎস/জাননী চাওক। Overviewঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Good research
 Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Definition of a sourceA source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. প্ৰকাশিতৰ সংজ্ঞা"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).
প্ৰকাশিত মানে যিকোনো উৎস যিটো জনসাধাৰণৰ বাবে উপলব্ধ কৰা হৈছিল, যেনে কিতাপ বা অনলাইন প্ৰবন্ধ আদি ৰূপত। "প্ৰকাশিত" শব্দটো প্ৰায়ে লিখিত বস্তুৰ সৈতে জড়িত, যেনে কিতাপ বা অনলাইন প্ৰবন্ধ, কিন্তু ইয়াত বিশ্বাসযোগ্য উৎসৰ দ্বাৰা বিতৰণ কৰা ৰেকৰ্ডিং কৰা অডিঅ', ভিডিঅ' বা মাল্টিমিডিয়াও অন্তৰ্ভুক্ত হ'ব পাৰে। লিখিত বিষয়বস্তুৰ দৰেই ৰেকৰ্ডিং কৰা অডিঅ', ভিডিঅ' বা মাল্টিমিডিয়াও বিশ্বাসযোগ্য উৎসৰ পৰা অহা আৰু শুদ্ধকৈ উদ্ধৃতি দিয়াটো প্ৰয়োজন। ইয়াৰ উপৰিও ৰেকৰ্ডিং কৰা অডিঅ', ভিডিঅ' বা মাল্টিমিডিয়াৰ এটা আৰ্কাইভ কপি থাকিব লাগিব। আৰ্কাইভ কৰা কপিটো অনলাইনত থকাটো বাঞ্চনীয় যদিওবা বাধ্যতামূলক নহয়। Context mattersThe reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article (see WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation). Context relates to specific facts, not just the sourceThe very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. For example, a web site that purports to list an artist's works is likely reliable for the fact that the artist authored a specific work, if the web site list meets other criteria for reliability (e.g., not under control of the artist or otherwise questionable), and especially if the list has some further indicia of reliability of existence and publication of the work (ISBN number, publisher stock number, photographs of covers, etc.). Similarly, the publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for the fact that the work exists, for the fact that the work was authored by the purported author, and for publication data (publishers are incentivized to be truthful about the works they publish; publishers do not invite copyright suits or inquiries for works that do not exist). But neither the list web page nor the publisher's web site are per se reliable for any critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work, or any rank ordering of merit, without further indicia of reliability. নতুন উৎসবিশেষকৈ বৈজ্ঞানিক আৰু শৈক্ষিক ক্ষেত্ৰত পুৰণি উৎসবোৰ শুদ্ধ নহ’ব পাৰে কাৰণ নতুন তথ্য পোহৰলৈ অনা, নতুন তত্ত্ব প্ৰস্তাৱ কৰা বা শব্দভাণ্ডাৰ সলনি হব পাৰে। ৰাজনীতি বা ফেশ্বনৰ দৰে ক্ষেত্ৰত আইন বা ট্ৰেণ্ডে পুৰণি দাবীক ভুল কৰি তুলিব পাৰে। বিশেষকৈ যোৱা কেইবছৰমানৰ পৰা নতুন আৱিষ্কাৰ বা উন্নয়ন হোৱাৰ যদি সম্ভাৱনা থাকে তেন্তে পুৰণি উৎসসমূহ স্থানান্তৰ কৰা হোৱা নাই নেকি সেয়া নিশ্চিতভাৱে পৰীক্ষা কৰক। বিশেষকৈ, নতুন উৎস সাধাৰণতে চিকিৎসা বিজ্ঞানত পছন্দ কৰা হয়। কেতিয়াবা, আমি এনেকুৱা উৎস ব্যৱহাৰ কৰিব নোৱাৰো যিবোৰ অতি নতুন, যেনে ব্ৰেকিং নিউজৰ সৈতে, কাৰণ পিছৰ প্ৰতিবেদনবোৰ হয়তো অধিক সঠিক হ’ব পাৰে। লগতে, বহুলভাৱে বিশ্বাস কৰা কিবা এটাক অসত্য বুলি প্ৰমাণ কৰিবলৈ বা নতুন আৱিষ্কাৰ প্ৰৱৰ্তন কৰিবলৈ চেষ্টা কৰা প্ৰাথমিক উৎসসমূহে আৱিষ্কাৰটো পুনৰ প্ৰমাণ কৰিবলৈ চেষ্টা কৰা অধ্যয়নৰ বাবে অপেক্ষা কৰিব লাগিব, বা আৱিষ্কাৰটো ভালকৈ কৰা হৈছে নে নাই পৰীক্ষা কৰা পৰ্যালোচনাৰ বাবে অপেক্ষা কৰিব লাগিব। অতীতত ঘটা কথাবোৰৰ ক্ষেত্ৰত পুৰণি প্ৰতিবেদনত (ঘটনাটোৰ বেছি ওচৰত নহয়, কিন্তু বেছি দূৰত নহয়) সাধাৰণতে সৰ্বাধিক তথ্য থাকে আৰু একাধিকবাৰ কপি কৰি সাৰাংশ দিওতে ভুল হোৱাৰ সম্ভাৱনাও কমে। কিন্তু, আন উৎসৰ পৰা তথ্য সংগ্ৰহ কৰা নতুন প্ৰাথমিক বা মাধ্যমিক উৎস ভাল হ’ব পাৰে। তেওঁলোকে মূল উৎসৰ পৰা অধিক প্ৰতিবেদন সংগ্ৰহ কৰিব পাৰে আৰু যিকোনো মতানৈক্য সমাধান কৰিব পাৰে। পুৰণি উৎসতকৈও ভালদৰে বুজাবলৈ আধুনিক জ্ঞান ব্যৱহাৰ কৰিব পাৰে, বা পৰিঘটনাবোৰ ঘটি থকাৰ সময়ত বা প্ৰবলভাৱে অনুভৱ কৰা সময়ৰ উৎসৰ দৰে পক্ষপাত নহ’বও পাৰে। যিকোনো সময়ৰ উৎস শেহতীয়া হোৱাৰ প্ৰৱণতা থাকিব পাৰে, আৰু ইয়াক সাৱধানে সম্পাদনা কৰি ভাৰসাম্য ৰক্ষা কৰাৰ প্ৰয়োজন। Some types of sourcesঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources আৰু Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
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, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current 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 attributed in-text where sources disagree. Scholarship
News organizations"WP:LEAKS" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia.
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 agencies such as 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 pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. 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).[6]
Vendor and e-commerce sourcesAlthough the content guidelines for external links prohibit 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 verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available. Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:
For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content. Biased or opinionated sourcesঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources
Wikipedia articles are required to present a 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. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Questionable and self-published sourcesপ্ৰধান পৃষ্ঠা: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources
Questionable sourcesQuestionable 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, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires.[10] The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[11][12] Sponsored contentঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Covert advertising
Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable. Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal.[13] Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal,[14] being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited. Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number,[15] or "Suppl." in a reference.[16] However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained. Self-published sources (online and paper)
প্ৰধান পৃষ্ঠা: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. 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, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. User-generated content
Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites. Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, ODMP, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below. Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselvesঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or 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 following criteria are met:
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. Reliability in specific contextsBiographies of living personsপ্ৰধান পৃষ্ঠা: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space. Primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcesWikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. 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). Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid 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 in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern. Medical claimsপ্ৰধান পৃষ্ঠা: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines 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, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Fringe theoriesঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্যৰ বাবে: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources
Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. Quotationsঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations
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 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. Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Academic consensusA statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists 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 novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus. Usage by other sourcesHow accepted and 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, whereas 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 opinionSome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. 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 their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and 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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source. The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves § See also. Breaking newsঅতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops
অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: 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 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 Breaking News Consumer's Handbook[17] contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats. When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources. The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles). For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see সাঁচ:Slink and সাঁচ:Slink. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,[18] especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are " HeadlinesNews headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles. Deprecated sourcesপ্ৰধান পৃষ্ঠা: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources
অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources আৰু Wikipedia:Spam blacklist
A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia. A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view. Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting. টোকা
তথ্য সংগ্ৰহ
বাহ্যিক সংযোগ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
