ಸದಸ್ಯ:Meghana dholli/ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಪುಟ: ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಣೆಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
೪೫ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.
ಆಕರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿದ ಹಾಗೆ ಒಂದು ಲೇಖನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯು ಸರಿ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ, ಲೇಖನದ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳು ಅಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾದ ಅಥವಾ ಅಸಮಂಜಸವಾದ ವಾಕ್ಯವೃಂದಗಳ, ಅಥವಾ ಕಮೆಂಟ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಕಳಿಸುವುದು ಅವಲಂಬಿಸದೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ವಾಕ್ಯವೃಂದಗಳ ಅನೇಕ ಅರ್ಥವಿವರಣೆಗಳಿಗೆ ತೆರೆದಿದೆ, ಅದು ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಬೇಕು ಅಥವಾ ತಡೆಯಬೇಕು. ವ್ಯಾಪಕ ಚರ್ಚೆಯ ಸಾರಾಂಶವನ್ನು ಮೂಲ ತೀರ್ಮಾನಗಳಾಗಿ ಬಿಂಬಿಸಬೇಕು. ತೀರ್ಮಾನಗಳನ್ನು ತಳೆಯುವಲ್ಲಿ, ಉಲ್ಲೇಖದ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೂ ಮೂಲ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಯ ಹೊರತಾಗಿ ಮೂಲ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಗಳು ಸಂದರ್ಭ ಮತ್ತು ವಿಷಯದ ಮೇಲೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲು ಇದು ಮುಖ್ಯ.
=== Primary, secondary and tertiary sources ===
೫೯ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
* The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
* [http://library.duke.edu/research/finding/primarysource.html Duke University, Libraries] offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include '''newspaper articles''', letters, diaries, '''interviews''', laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."</ref>
::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.<ref name="Exceptional">Any exceptional claim would require [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require_exceptional_sources|exceptional sources]].</ref> Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.<!-- If you intend to revert this sentence, please give your rationale in your edit summary or on the talk page. -RoyGoldsmith, 7/19/12. This inline comment may be removed after about 8/1/12. ---> For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. '''Do not''' analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. '''Do not''' base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. '''Do not''' add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]], which is policy.
* A '''[[secondary source]]''' provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [[Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent|Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources]]. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.<ref>[http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".</ref> For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.<ref>The [http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary Ithaca College Library] compares research articles to review articles. Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.</ref> Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War ''might'' be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.<ref name="BOOK REVIEW">Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Multiple coverage in book reviews is considered one of the [[WP:Notability (books)|notability criteria for books]]; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book; a book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author and related writing issues than be considered a secondary source for the topics covered within the book. For definitions of book reviews:▼
▲* A
* [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review Princeton's Wordnet 2011 scholarly definitions repository] defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, [of] a recently published book)."
* [http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html VirginiaTech University Libraries] provides the following definition: "A book review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a book... Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."</ref>
::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles ''may'' make an analytic or evaluative claim ''only if'' that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
* '''[[Tertiary source]]s''' are publications such as encyclopedias and other [[Compendium|compendia]] that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating [[WP:DUE|due weight]], especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see [[:Category:Wikipedia]] and [[:Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles]]).
| |||