Википедија:Поуздани извори

Article on other languages:

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Digg Digg
Furl Furl
Reddit Reddit
Rojo Rojo
Add to OnlyWire
Овај чланак или један његов део није преведен.
Ако сматрате да сте способни да га преведете, кликните на картицу уреди и преведите га, обавезно водећи рачуна о стилу и правопису.

Википедијини чланци би требали да су засновани на поузданим објављеним изворима. Ова страница је смерница, а не правило, али она представља усаглашену интерпретацију правила и требало би је следити. Релевантна правила око извора су Без оригиналног истраживања и Проверљивост.

Било који материјал који може бити оспорен или ће веротатно бити оспорен захтева извор, а обавеза за проналажење извора лежи на особи која дода или врати тај материјал. Измене без извора или са слабим изворима могу бити оспорене и уклоњене било када. Понекад је боље немати информацију него имати информацију без извора.

Садржај

Зашто користити поуздане изворе?

Извори се користе:

  • Да дају подршку тврдњи унетој у чланак. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
  • To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations. See Википедија:Copyrights.

Коришћење поузданих извора убеђује читаоца да оно што му је представљено испуњава Википедијине стандарде за проверљивост, оригиналност и неутралност. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.

Assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources.

If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, this suggests to the reader that the content be treated with a degree of skepticism, and to the editor that the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Гледишта поузданости

Научни извори

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion can always be considered reliable. However they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

  • The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
  • Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
  • Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.
  • In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ.

Ненаучни извори

Some criteria that can assist editors in evaluating non-scholarly sources:

  • Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content.
  • Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.
  • Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.

  • Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature). Note that some of a publication's content, such as editorials, commentary, announcements, advertising, etc., may have little or no editorial oversight, and should be treated as self-published material.
  • Replicability—The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source.
  • Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
  • Confidentiality—Sources which are considered confidential by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority. Given that the original cannot be used to validate the reference, these should be treated with caution.
  • Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.
  • Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.
  • Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.
  • Persistence— If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution.

These issues are particularly pertinent to Wikipedia where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template.

Изузетне тврдње захтевају изузетне изворе

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

  • Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.

For guidance related to the creation of entire articles about said topics, see Википедија:Fringe theories.

Типови извора

За више информација погледајте Википедија:Без оригиналног истраживања

Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia:

  • A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, court records, or other documents produced by a participant in an event, or an observer of an event. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source because experts have the resources required for interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research.
  • Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources, including but not limited to: books, and newspaper and magazine articles.
  • Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

Биографије живих особа

За више информација погледајте Википедија:Биографије живих особа

Споран материјал без извора или са слабим изворима о живим особама би требало одмах уклонити и не би га требало премештати на страницу за разговор.[1]

Самоиздани извори (мрежни или папирни)

Свако може направити мрежно место или платити да изда књигу, а затим тврдити да је стручњак на неком пољу. Због тих разлога, самоиздате књиге, лична мрежна места, анонимна мрежна места и блогови углавном нису прихватљиви као извори. Видети доле за објашњења.

Огласне табле, викији и поруке на Јусенету

За више информација погледајте Википедија:Проверљивост

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions.

Самоиздати извори

За више информација погледајте Википедија:Проверљивост

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Government officials self-publishing within the scope of their official duties, and using official government channels, but without editorial oversight, are also acceptable primary sources for reporting on the official acts of that person or group.

Самоиздати извори у чланцима о себи

За више информација погледајте Википедија:Проверљивост

Самоиздати материјал, било да је издан на интернету или као књига или памфлет, се може користити као извори информација о аутору, све док нема сумње ко је написао материјал и све док:

  • relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
  • not contentious;
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

Самоиздати извори као секундарни извори

За више информација погледајте Википедија:Проверљивост

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

Партијски, корпорацијски, институцијски и религијски извори

Мрежна места, штампане медије и друге публикације политичких партија, компанија, организација и религијских група би требало третирати са опрезом, пошто се она могу користити да шире одређена политича, корпоративна, институцијска и религиозна гледишта. Of course such political, corporate, institutional or religious affiliation is not in itself a reason to exclude a source.

Екстремистички извори

Организације или појединци који су широко сматрани као естремистички, било да су политичке, религиозне, расистичке или неке друге природе, би требало да буду коришћени као извори о њима и њиховим активностима у чланцима о њима, а чак и тада уз опрез.

Convenience links

Also see Википедија:Convenience links

The term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the Internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to Adam Smith's famous work The Wealth of Nations might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the internet, as follows:

Smith, Adam [1776] (1904). In: ed. Edwin Cannan The Wealth of Nations, Fifth edition, London: Methuen and Co., available at Wikisource

Such links are unique in how reliability is applied. It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original.

Claims of consensus

Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion. Claims that "most" or "all" scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources.

Examples of statistics, subjects and online sources

See Википедија:Reliable sources/examples for examples and discussion on the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, Business and Commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

Види још

References

Шаблон:FootnotesSmall

Спољашње везе


- Добављено из „http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8“

This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.