উইকিপিডিয়া:যাচাইযোগ্যতা

উইকিপিডিয়া, মুক্ত বিশ্বকোষ থেকে
Доверяй, но проверяй (দোভেরিয়াই নো প্রোভেরিয়াই)
আস্থা রাখো কিন্তু যাচাই করো (রুশ প্রবাদ)
"WP:V" এখানে পুননির্দেশ করা হয়েছে। ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার জন্য দেখুন জন্য, দেখুন উইকিপিডিয়া:ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা
এই ভিডিওতে ব্যাখ্যা করা হয়েছে যাচাইযোগ্যতা ও নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির ধারণা (দুই মিনিট দশ সেকেন্ড, ১১ এমবি)

উইকিপিডিয়াতে কেবলমাত্র তা-ই প্রকাশ করা যাবে যা যাচাইযোগ্য(Verifiable) এবং যা কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়

একটি সম্পূর্ণ ও নির্ভরযোগ্য বিশ্বকোষে পরিণত হওয়া উইকিপিডিয়ার লক্ষ্য। আর উইকিপিডিয়ার একটি নির্ভরযোগ্য বিশ্বকোষে পরিণত হবার চাবিকাঠি হল যাচাইযোগ্যতা। আমাদেরকে মনে রাখতে হবে যে একটি বিশ্বকোষে অন্তর্ভুক্তিযোগ্য নিবন্ধে কেবলমাত্র সে-সব তথ্য, মতামত, তত্ত্ব, ধারণা ও যুক্তির সন্নিবেশ ঘটবে, যেগুলো ইতিমধ্যে কোন খ্যাতনামা প্রকাশক প্রকাশ করেছেন। সে লক্ষ্যে সম্পাদকদের কোন কিছু সম্পাদনা/সংযোজন-বিয়োজনের সময় অবশ্যই বিশ্বাসযোগ্য উত্সনির্দেশ করতে হবে, যাতে অন্যান্য পাঠক ও সম্পাদকেরা সহজেই নতুন সম্পাদনাকর্মটি যাচাই করে নিতে পারেন।

এখানে উল্লেখ্যঃ "যাচাইযোগ্যতা" বলতে এখানে এটা বোঝানো হচ্ছে না যে উইকিপিডিয়ার সম্পাদকদেরকে কোন মাধ্যমে প্রকশিত তথ্য, যেমন কোন বাংলা দৈনিকে প্রকাশিত একটি তথ্য, আসলেই সত্য কি না তা যাচাই করতে হবে। এ-ধরনের যাচাইয়ের ব্যপারে উইকিপিডিয়ার সম্পাদকদের নিরুত্সাহিত করা হয়, কারণ এ-ধরনের যাচাইকর্ম মৌলিক গবেষণার পর্যায়ে পড়ে। আর সম্পাদকের নিজস্ব মৌলিক গবেষণা প্রকাশ উইকিপিডিয়ার মূলনীতি বহির্ভূত।

তাহলে উইকিপিডিয়ার একটি নিবন্ধে কী ধরনের তথ্য, মতামত, যুক্তি, ইত্যাদি থাকবে? সে-সব জিনিষই থাকবে যে-সব কোন বিশ্বাসযোগ্য বা খ্যাতনামা প্রকাশক কর্তৃক ইতিমধ্যে প্রকাশিত হয়েছে। কিন্তু এগুলোর পরম সত্যতা-অসত্যতা যাচাই করা এই বিশ্বকোষের সম্পাদকদের কাজ নয়। আজগুবি লাগলেও এটা আমাদের সবাইকে মেনে নিতে হবে যে, উইকিপিডিয়াতে কোনকিছুর অন্তর্ভুক্তির আসল পরীক্ষা সেটির সত্যতা নয়, বরং সেটির যাচাইযোগ্যতা। বলা বাহুল্য যে সম্পাদকদের অবশ্যই ভালো উত্স থেকে তাঁদের লেখার উপকরণ সংগ্রহ করতে হবে।

উইকিপিডিয়ায় পরিবেশিত তথ্যের প্রকৃতি কেমন হবে, সে ব্যাপারে তিনটি প্রধান নীতি আছে, যাদের একটি হল উইকিপিডিয়া:যাচাইযোগ্যতা। এ-সম্পর্কিত অন্য দু'টি প্রধান নীতি হল উইকিপিডিয়া:নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি এবং উইকিপিডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়। মূলনীতি তিনটি একে অপরের পরিপূরক এবং সে-ভাবেই এগুলোকে জানতে হবে, বিছিন্নভাবে নয়। তাই সম্পাদকদের এই তিনটি মুলনীতি সম্পর্কেই যথাযথ ধারণা অর্জন করতে হবে।

প্রমাণের দায়ভার[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:BURDEN
WP:PROVEIT
WP:UNSOURCED
WP:BOP
For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[২] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.[৩] If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{citation needed}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[৪]

Tagging a sentence, section, or article[সম্পাদনা]

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template—write {{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 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.

উৎস[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:SOURCES

নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস[সম্পাদনা]

উইকিপিডিয়াতে উৎসের ৩ রকম অর্থ আছেঃ

  • কাজটির নমুনা, যেমন বই,প্রবন্ধ,গবেষণাপত্র ইত্যাদি
  • কাজটির স্রষ্টা (যেমন লেখক,গায়ক)
  • কাজটির প্রকাশক (যেমন বিবিসি)

এই ৩টি জিনিস তথ্যের গ্রহণযোগ্যতা বৃদ্ধি করে।

প্রবন্ধগুলোতে নির্ভরযোগ্য ৩য় পক্ষের তথ্য উৎস থাকা প্রয়োজন যাদের নির্ভুল এবং নিরপেক্ষ তথ্য প্রদানের জন্য সুনাম রয়েছে। প্রবন্ধকে মানসম্মত করতে নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস প্রয়োজন। citations are needed to direct the reader to those sources to give credit to the writers and publishers. This avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

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. The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been 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.

To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the reliable sources noticeboard. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but note that in the case of inconsistency between this page and that one, this policy has priority.

স্বপ্রকাশিত উৎস[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:SELFPUBLISH
WP:SPS
WP:TWITTER
WP:V#SELF

Anyone can create a website or 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, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[৫]

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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

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.

সন্দেহজনক উৎস[সম্পাদনা]

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. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.


Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:SELFPUB

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:

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

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:CIRCULAR

Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would amount to Wikipedia citing itself, a self-reference. As an exception, Wikipedia may be cited as a primary source (with caution) for information about itself, such as in articles about itself.

Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia.

Non-English sources[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:RSUE
WP:VUE
WP:NONENG

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:REDFLAG

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, 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 persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[৬] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Access to sources[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:Access to sources
WP:SOURCEACCESS
WP:PAYWALL

Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. 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 copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.

See also[সম্পাদনা]

Notes[সম্পাদনা]

  1. Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16)। ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information""। WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive। সংগৃহীত 2006-06-11 
  2. This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to provide a citation to the source of the statement.
  3. 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.
  4. As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "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" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).
  5. "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 professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010). Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
  6. This idea—that exceptional claims require exceptional sources—has an intellectual history which traces back through the Enlightenment. In 1758, David Hume wrote in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: "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 endeavors to establish." [১]

আরও দেখুন[সম্পাদনা]

পাদটীকা[সম্পাদনা]

বহির্সংযোগ[সম্পাদনা]