Վիքիպեդիա

«Վիքիպեդիա:Ոչ մի սկզբնական հետազոտություն»–ի խմբագրումների տարբերություն

Դիտել պատմությունը
← Նախորդ տարբՀաջորդ տարբ →
Content deleted Content added
ՎիզուալԵլատեքստ
չ GeoO տեղափոխեց էջը «Վիքիպեդիա:ՎիքիՆախագիծ Ուղեգիծ/Հաքաթոն/Վիքիպեդիա:Ոչ մի սկզբնական հետազոտություն»-ից «[[Վիքիպեդիա:Ոչ մի սկզբնական հետ...
No edit summary
Տող 1.
{{policy|ՎՊ:ՍՀ|WP:ՕՐԻԳԻՆԱԼ|ՎՊ:ՈՄՍՀ}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{dablink|To raise issues with specific articles, see the [[Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard|No original research noticeboard]]}}
{{policy|WP:OR|WP:NOR|WP:ORIGINAL}}
{{nutshell|Wikipedia does [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|not]] publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|attributable]] to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.}}
{{Content policy list}}
 
'''Վիքիպեդիան չի հրապարակում սկզբնական հետազոտություն'''.«Սկզբնական հետազոտություն» են համարվում փաստերը, պնդումները, գաղափարներն ու պատմությունները, որոնք դեռևս հրապարակված չեն հավաստի աղբյուրների կողմից [[WP:V#Sources|հավաստի աղբյուրներ]]․ Այն վերաբերում է նաև հրապարակված նյութի ցանկացած վերլուծության կամ սինթեզի, որը օգնում է պնդել մի դիրքորոշում, որն ընդունելի չէ աղբյուրի կողմից։
Տող 35 ⟶ 31՝
 
=== Սկզբնական, երկորդական և երրորդական աղբյուրներ ===
 
{{redirect|WP:PRIMARY|the article naming guideline|WP:PRIMARYTOPIC}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:PSTS|WP:PRIMARY|WP:SECONDARY}}
Վիքիպեդիայի հոդվածները պետք է հիմնված լինեն հավաստի, հրապարակված[[երկրորդական աղբյուրների]] և ավելի հազվադեպ [[երրորդական աղբյուրների]] վրա։ Երկրորդական և երրորդական աղբյուրնեն անհրաժեշտ են թեմայի կարևորությունը սահմանելու և առաջնային աղբյուրի նոր մեկնաբանություններից խուսափելու համար՝ չնայած սկզբնական աղբյուրների օգտագործումը թույլատրելի է ուշադիր լինելու պայմանով։ [[Սկզբնական աղբյուրների]] վերաբերյալ բոլոր պնդումները, որոնք ենթակա են մեկնաբանության, վերլուծությունները կամ սինթետիկ պնդումները պետք է հղվեն որևէ երկրորդական աղբյուրի, ոչ թե Վիքիպեդիայի խմբագիրների առաջնային աղբյուրի նյութի սկզբնական վերլուծությանը։
 
Տող 46 ⟶ 41՝
* [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>
 
== Նշումներ ==
::{{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. 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 that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. 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 articles entirely on primary sources. '''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.
 
* '''[[Secondary source]]s''' are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often 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.
 
::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
 
* '''[[Tertiary source]]s''' are publications such as encyclopedias or other [[Compendium|compendia]] that mainly summarize 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, especially when those 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.
 
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
<!--Note: If this heading is changed, update [[Template:Syn]].-->{{policy shortcut|WP:SYN|WP:SYNTH|WP:SYNTHESIS|WP:ORIGINAL SYN}}
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'''.<ref>Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/017591.html "Original research"], December 6, 2004)</ref> "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable ''only if'' a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
 
*A simple example of original synthesis:
 
{{Quote box4
|quote = {{cross}} '''The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.'''
|source =
|width = 70%
|align = center
}}
 
*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:
 
{{Quote box4
|quote = {{cross}} '''The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.'''
|source =
|width = 70%
|align = center
}}
 
*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:
 
{{Quote box4
|quote = {{tick}} '''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.'''
|source =
|width = 70%
|align = center
}}
 
*Now comes the original synthesis:
 
{{Quote box4
|quote = {{cross}} '''If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard ''Writing with Sources'' manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.'''
|source =
|width = 70%
|align = center
}}
 
The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that ''specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism''. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.
 
== Original images ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:OI}}
Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the [[GFDL]], [[CC-BY-SA]], or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, ''so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. It is not acceptable for an editor to use [[photo manipulation]] to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Images|Images of living persons]] must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.
 
==Translations and transcriptions==
Faithfully translating or transforming sourced material into English text using standard techniques is not considered original research. Sourced material can include, but is not restricted to foreign language text, spoken words from [[Sound recording and reproduction|audio]] or [[Video|video]] sources, measurements made from [[maps]] and information returned by reputable computer programs. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources]].
 
==Routine calculations==
{{policy shortcut|WP:CALC}}
 
This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors [[Wikipedia:Consensus|agree]] that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the [[WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources|sources]]. See also [[:Category:Conversion templates]].
 
== Related policies ==
=== Verifiability ===
{{main|Wikipedia:Verifiability}}
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described [[WP:SOURCES|here]].
 
=== Neutral point of view ===
{{main|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. [[Jimmy Wales|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 &mdash; whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not &mdash; it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.<ref>Wales, Jimmy. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html "WikiEN-l roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--"], [[September 29]], [[2003]].</ref>
 
== See also ==
{{Wikiversity|Wikiversity:Publishing original research}}
* {{tl|Original research}} &mdash; template used to warn of original research
* {{tl|Synthesis}} &mdash; template used to warn of unpublished synthesis
* [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself]]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research/history]] &mdash; origins of this policy
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes]]
* [[Wikipedia:These are not original research]]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research/Examples]]
* [[Observer effect (information technology)|Observer effect]] — Wikipedia's popularity means that documenting an obscure concept (e.g. an internet meme) in Wikipedia might increase its visibility, generating artificial notability as other sources cover it due to the additional exposure obtained from Wikipedia
* [[Wikipedia in culture#Wikiality|Wikiality]]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard|No original research noticeboard]]
 
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
 
Տող 151 ⟶ 54՝
{{refend}}
<br/>
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
 
[[Կատեգորիա:Wikipedia content policy]]
[[Կատեգորիա:Wikipedia verifiability]]
 
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:കണ്ടെത്തലുകള്‍ അരുത്]]
Ստացված է «https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Վիքիպեդիա:Ոչ_մի_սկզբնական_հետազոտություն» էջից