ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ

ಸದಸ್ಯ:Navamadi.s/ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಪುಟ: ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಣೆಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ

Browse history interactively
← ಹಿಂದಿನ ಸಂಪಾದನೆನಂತರದ ಸಂಪಾದನೆ →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
೪೦ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
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).
==ಸ್ಥಾನವನ್ನು ಮುನ್ನಡೆಸುವ ಪ್ರಕಟಿತ ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಸಂಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆ==
Synthesis of published material that advances a position[ಮೂಲವನ್ನು ಸಂಪಾದಿಸು]
Policy shortcuts:
WP:SYN
೪೬ ನೇ ಸಾಲು:
WP:SYNTHESIS
WP:ORIGINALSYN
 
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[೮] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ವಿವರಿಸದ ಮೂಲಗಳ ತೀರ್ಮಾನವನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸಲು ಅಥವಾ ತಲುಪಲು ಅನೇಕ ಮೂಲಗಳಿಂದ ವಸ್ತುವನ್ನು ಒಗ್ಗೂಡಿಸ ಬೇಡಿ. ಒಂದು ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ಮೂಲ ಎ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೆ, ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ಮೂಲ ಬಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ, ಎರಡರಲ್ಲಿ ಒ೦ದು ಮೂಲಗಳ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲದ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ ಸಿ ಸೂಚಿಸಲು ಎ ಮತ್ತು ಬಿ ಯನ್ನು ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿಸ ಬೇಡಿ. ಇದು ನಂತರ ಹೊಸ ಸ್ಥಾನವನ್ನು ಮುನ್ನಡೆಸುವ ಪ್ರಕಟಿತ ವಸ್ತುಗಳ ಸಂಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ, ಅದು ಮೂಲ ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ ಆಗಿದೆ. "ಎ ಮತ್ತು ಬಿ, ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸಿ" ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ಮೂಲವು ಲೇಖನದ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಅದೇ ವಾದವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿರಬೇಕು. ಒಂದು ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದೇ ಮೂಲದ "ಎ" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ ವೇಳೆಗೆ, ಇನ್ನೊಂದೆಡೆ "ಬಿ", ಅವಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸದೆ,ಮತ್ತು "ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸಿ" ವಾದವನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ನಂತರ "ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸಿ" ಯಾವುದೇ ಲೇಖನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
A simple example of original synthesis:
ಮೂಲ ಸಂಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆಯ ಒಂದು ಉದಾಹರಣೆ:
The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.▼
ಯುನೈಟೆಡ್ ನೇಷನ್ಸ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಅಂತಾರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಶಾಂತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಭದ್ರತೆಯನ್ನು ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವುದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿತು, ಆದರೆ ಇದರ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭದಿಂದಲೇ ವಿಶ್ವದಾದ್ಯಂತವಾಗಿ 160 ಯುದ್ಧಗಳು ನಡೆದಿವೆ.
Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:▼
ವಾಕ್ಯದ ಎರಡೂ ಭಾಗಗಳು ಮೂಲ ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹವಾಗಿರಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಯುನೈಟೆಡ್ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ಸ್ ವಿಶ್ವ ಶಾಂತಿಯನ್ನು ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಲು ವಿಫಲವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಅವುಗಳು ಸೇರಿ ಸೂಚಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.
▲Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:
▲ The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, butand since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.
The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to this dispute:
Yes Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
Line ೭೪ ⟶ ೭೬:
Related policies[ಮೂಲವನ್ನು ಸಂಪಾದಿಸು]
Verifiability[ಮೂಲವನ್ನು ಸಂಪಾದಿಸು]
==ಸಂಬಂಧಿತ ನೀತಿಗಳು==
Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability
===ಸತ್ಯಾಪನಿಕ==
Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described here.
ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ವಿಷಯವು ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ಸಂಪಾದಕರ ಅನುಭವಗಳಿಗಿಂತ ಹಿಂದೆ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿಮಗೆ ಯಾವುದೋ ಒಂದು ವಿಷಯ ಖಚಿತವಾಗಿ ನಿಜವೆಂದರೂ ಸಹ, ನೀವು ಸೇರಿಸುವ ಮೊದಲು ಅದನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಬೇಕು. ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಿಸಿದ ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಿಸಿದ ಮತ್ತು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಗಳು ಒಂದು ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ಮೂಲದ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿದೆ.ಅದು ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಾರ್ಹ ಮೂಲವೆಂದು ವಿವರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
Neutral point of view[ಮೂಲವನ್ನು ಸಂಪಾದಿಸು]
===ತಟಸ್ಥ ಕೊನೆಯ ದೃಷ್ಟಿ ==
Main page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research ''all'' points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
 
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:
* If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not —- it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[೯]
"https://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/ಸದಸ್ಯ:Navamadi.s/ನನ್ನ_ಪ್ರಯೋಗಪುಟ" ಇಂದ ಪಡೆಯಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ