ಸದಸ್ಯ:Navamadi.s/ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಪುಟ: ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಣೆಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ
Content deleted Content added
Navamadi.s (ಚರ್ಚೆ | ಕಾಣಿಕೆಗಳು) No edit summary |
Navamadi.s (ಚರ್ಚೆ | ಕಾಣಿಕೆಗಳು) No edit summary |
||
೭ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
"ಮೂಲ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಯಲ್ಲ" ತಟಸ್ಥ ಕೊನೆಯ ದೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸತ್ಯಾಪನಿಕ ನೀತಿಯ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಮೂರು ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಷಯದ ನೀತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಲೇಖನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವೀಕಾರಾರ್ಹ ರೀತಿ ಮತ್ತು ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಗುಣಮಟ್ಟವನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ, ಈ ನೀತಿಗಳು ಸಾಮರಸ್ಯದಿಂದ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ, ಅವು ಪರಸ್ಪರದಿಂದ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಿಸಬಾರದು ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಪಾದಕರು ಎಲ್ಲ ಮೂರೂ ತಮಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಯಾವುದೇ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಸ೦ಪಾದನೆ, ಮೂಲ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಯನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸುವುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಮೂಲ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಯಲ್ಲ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆ ಬೋರ್ಡನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ.
If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.
In general, the most reliable sources are:
೧೬ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
mainstream newspapers
As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions.
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.
==ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ, ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ತೃತೀಯ ಮೂಲಗಳು==
೩೦ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
ನೀತಿ: ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ನೀತಿಯಿಂದ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಿಸಲ್ಪಡುವ ವರೆಗೂ, ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿದ ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು.ಆದರೆ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆಯಿಂದ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಇವನ್ನು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ದುರುಪಯೋಗ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಆ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ಮೂಲ ಅಗತ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕವಾದ, ವಿವರಣಾತ್ಮಕ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಲು ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲವನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗಬಹುದು, ಅದನ್ನು ಯಾವುದೇ ಶಿಕ್ಷಿತರು ಮೂಲ ಪ್ರವೇಶದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.ಆದರೆ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ವಿಶೇಷ ಜ್ಞಾನ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ.
ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ: ಒಂದು ಕಾದಂಬರಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದು ಲೇಖನವು ಕಥಾವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಲು ಹಾದಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಕ್ಕೂ ದ್ವಿತೀಯ ಮೂಲವು ಅಗತ್ಯವಾಗಿದೆ. ನೀವು ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡುಬರುವುದನ್ನು ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಿಸ,ಸಂಶ್ಲೇಷಿಸ,ಅರ್ಥವಿವರಣೆ ಅಥವಾ ವಸ್ತು ಮೌಲ್ಯಮಾಪನ ಮಾಡಬಾರದು;ಬದಲಿಗೆ, ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ದ್ವಿತೀಯ ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿ.
ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲಗಳು ಇಡೀ ಲೇಖನ ಆಧರಿಸಿರಬಾರದು,ಮತ್ತು ಅವುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಹಾದಿ ಆಧಾರವಾಗಿಡುವುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಎಚ್ಚರದಿಂದಿರಿ. ನಿಮ್ಮ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಅನುಭವದಿಂದ ಮೂಲವಿಲ್ಲದ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಬೇಡಿ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ವೀಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಆ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ವಾಸಿಸುವ ಜನರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಮೂಲಗಳು
ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವರಿ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಬಳಸಿ
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. 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.[೫] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[೬] 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.[೭]▼
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.*▼
▲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. 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.[೫] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[೬] 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.[೭]
▲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 sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other 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.
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 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).
|