විකිපීඩියා

"විකිපීඩියා:සත්‍යෝක්ෂ්‍යතාව" හි සංශෝධන අතර වෙනස්කම්

Browse history interactively
← පැරණි සංස්කරණනව සංස්කරණ →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
1 පේළිය:
{{pp-meta|type=full|small=yes}}<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
:''To discuss particular sources, see the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]]. For vandalism, see [[WP:VAND]]. For the default Wikipedia skin, see [[WP:VECTOR]].''
{{policy|WP:V|WP:VERIFY|WP:SOURCE}}
{{nutshell|AllOther people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]].}}
{{Content policy list}}
'''Verifiability''' on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|cited sources]] that [[Wikipedia:No original research|directly support]] the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. '''Verifiability, and not truth,''' is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable.{{underdiscussion-inline|talkpage=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability}}
 
It must be ''possible'' to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|inline citations]] for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.<ref>See the section [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Using_sources|''Using sources'']] of the policy ''No original research'', that describes summarizing materials ''in your own words'', leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.</ref> Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about living people]] must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|Citing sources]]. This policy applies to all material in the [[Wikipedia:mainspace|mainspace]].
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth''': whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been [[WP:SOURCES|published by a reliable source]], not whether editors think it is true.
 
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]. Theseare policiesWikipedia's jointlycore determinecontent thepolicies. type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They shouldwork nottogether beto interpreteddetermine in isolation from one anothercontent, andso editors should familiarize themselves withunderstand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the [[Wikipedia:Copyright|copyright policy]].▼
All material added to articles must be attributable to a [[WP:SOURCES|source]] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be attributed, through an [[WP:CITE#Inline citations|inline citation]] that directly supports the material.<ref>See the discussion about sources in [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Sources|WP:NOR]] that describes summarizing materials ''in your own words'', leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.</ref> For how to write citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|Citing sources]].
 
This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about [[WP:BLP|living persons]]. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
 
▲Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the [[Wikipedia:Copyright|copyright policy]].
 
==When a reliable source is required==
{{anchor|Sources}}
===Anything challenged or likely to be challenged===
{{policy shortcut|WP:CHALLENGE|WP:CHALLENGED|WP:FULLCITE}}
All quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be attributed to a reliable published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. CiteThe citation should fully identify the source clearly, and precisely,the withlocation within the source (specifying page, numberssection, whereor such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found. See [[WP:Citing sources|Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.
 
===Burden of evidence===
{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN|WP:UNSOURCED}}
The '''burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'''. You may remove any material lacking aan reliable[[Wikipedia:Citing sourcesources#Inline thatcitations|inline directlycitation]] supportsto ita reliable source. HowWhether and how quickly thisremoval should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tag as an interim step.<ref>It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{tl|unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{tl|refimprove}} or {{tl|unreferenced}}.</ref> Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been [[WP:PRESERVE|good practice]] to make reasonable effortstry to find and cite supporting sources yourself and cite them. Do ''not'' leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[WP:BLP|living people]]; seeyou should also be aware of how the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_persons_and_groups|here]] for how the BLP policy applies to groups]].<ref name="Wales_2006-05_Wikimedia_wikien-l">[[Jimmy Wales|Wales, Jimmy]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."</ref>
 
==Reliable sources==
{{policy shortcut|WP:SOURCES}}
===What counts as a reliable source===
The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, ''The NewOxford YorkUniversity TimesPress''). All three can affect reliability.
 
BaseArticles articlesshould be based on reliable, [[Wikipedia:Third-party sources|third-party]], published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to [[WP:BLP|living people]] or [[WP:MEDRS|medicine]] should be sourced especially carefully.
 
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in ''[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] and [[Wikipedia:Search engine test]]''.
 
===Newspaper and magazine blogs===
{{policy shortcut|WP:NEWSBLOG}}
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host [[WP:PRIMARY|columns]] on their web sites that they call [[blog]]s. These aremay be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals andbut theshould blogbe isused subjectwith tocaution the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010,because the Pressblog Complaintsmay Commissionnot in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines arebe subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in thatnews organization's printnormal editionsfact checking process.<ref>Plunkett, John. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/29/rod-liddle-pcc-spectator name="Rod Liddle censured by the PCCEXCEPTIONAL"], ''The Guardian'', March 29, 2010.</ref> Where a news organization publishes an [[WP:PRIMARY|opinion piece]] in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggestedwrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see [[#Self-published sources|seeSelf-published belowsources]] below.
 
===Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS {{anchor|Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS guideline}}===
{{see|Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources}}
To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]], which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular ''types'' of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the [[WP:IRS]] guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, thethis policy has priority.
 
==Sources that are usually not reliable==
{{policy shortcut|WP:NOTRELIABLE|WP:NOTRS|WP:QS}}
===Questionable sources===
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.<ref name="COI SOURCES">Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources. Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors; news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors; material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications) involved in or struck down by litigation in any country or those released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation; and promotional material released through media in the form of paid news reports. For definitions of sources with conflict of interest:
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]. They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.▼
* The [http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_conflicts/foundation/index.html Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, Columbia University] mentions: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse -- actual, apparent, or potential -- of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood. It is also important to note that a conflict of interest is not considered misconduct in research, since the definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism."
* [http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html The New York Times Company] forwards this understanding: "Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may arise in many areas. They may involve tensions between journalists' professional obligations to our audience and their relationships with news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another; or with the company or one of its units. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, household members and other relatives can create conflicts or the appearance of them."
</ref>
▲QuestionableSuch sources areinclude, thosebut withare anot poorlimited reputation for checking the factsto, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledgedconsidered asby other sources to be extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]. They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
<span id="SELF"></span>
 
Line 52 ⟶ 53:
{{policy shortcut|WP:SPS|WP:SELFPUBLISH|WP:BLOGS}}
{{see|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources}}
Anyone can create a [[personal web page]] or [[vanity press|pay to have a book published]], and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.<ref name="EXCEPTIONAL">Please do note that any exceptional claim would require [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional_sources|exceptional sources]]</ref> Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.<ref>Self published material is characterized by the ''lack of independent reviewers'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and [[manifesto|electoral manifestos]]:
* The [http://library.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html University of California, Berkeley library] states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
 
* [http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other/ Princeton University] offers this understanding in its publication, ''Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011)'': "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it’s made instantly available across the globe."
* The [http://library.stkate.edu/pdf/citeChicago.pdf Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition] states that "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."</ref>
'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
 
Line 61 ⟶ 64:
{{policy shortcut|WP:ABOUTSELF|WP:SELFPUB|WP:TWITTER|WP:SOCIALMEDIA}}
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information '''about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
# the material is not unduly self-serving and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources|exceptional]] in nature;
 
# the material is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
Line 68 ⟶ 70:
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as [[Twitter]], [[Tumblr]], and [[Facebook]].
 
===Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:CIRCULAR}}
Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|mirror its content]] as sources, because this would amount to [[Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references|self-reference]]. Similarly, do not use sources that present material originating ''from'' Wikipedia to support that same material ''in'' Wikipedia, as this would create [[circular reference|circular sourcing]]. Citing Wikipedia mayto besupport citeda with''descriptive'' cautionstatement asabout Wikipedia itself is not a [[WP:NOR#Primary,form secondaryof andcircular tertiaryreferencing. sources|Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a [[primary source]] ofand informationshould onfollow itself,the such[[wp:PRIMARY|relevant aspolicy infor articlesthe aboutuse itselfof primary sources]].
 
==Accessibility==
===Access to sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:PAYWALL|WP:SOURCEACCESS}}
{{Seealso|Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|Wikipedia:Offline sources|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost}}
Verifiability in this context means anyonethat other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|WikiProject Resource Exchange]] may be able to assist in obtaining source material.
 
=== Non-English sources ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:NOENG|WP:NONENG}}
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Translators available|Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions}}
 
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whereassuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text|fair-use guideline]].
:*'''When quoting a source in a different language''', provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.
:*'''When citing a non-English source for information''', it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.<ref name=Courtesy />
 
Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text|fair-use guideline]].
 
==Other issues==
===Tagging a sentence, section, or article===
{{see|Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles}}
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{tl|citation needed}} template by writing {{tl|cn}} or {{tl|fact}}. Other templates are available [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources|here]] for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{tl|verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{tl|failed verification}} or removed. UnsourcedWhen orusing poorlytemplates sourcedto contentioustag material, aboutit [[WP:BLP|livingis people]]helpful shouldto beother removededitors immediatelyif andyou notexplain taggedyour orrationale movedin tothe template, edit summary, or on the talk page. ▼
 
Special care should be used in regard to material about [[WP:BLP|living people]]. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page.
▲If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{tl|citation needed}} template by writing {{tl|cn}} or {{tl|fact}}. Other templates are available [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources|here]] for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] requesting a source, or move the material there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{tl|verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{tl|failed verification}} or removed. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about [[WP:BLP|living people]] should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page.
 
===Exceptional claims require exceptional sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAG|WP:EXCEPTIONAL}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Fringe theories}}
ExceptionalAny claimsexceptional requireclaim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources.<ref>[[David Hume|Hume, David]]. [http://books.google.com/books?id=H1rKYw9SnTgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA86 ''An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding''], Forgotten Books, 1984; first published 1748, p. 86: "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior."</ref>
[[Red flag (signal)|Red flag]]s that should prompt extra caution include:
* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
* challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;<ref name="COI SOURCES"/>
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] to silence them.
 
==Reliable sourcesVerifiability and other principles==
===Copyright and plagiarism===
{{see|Wikipedia:Copyright|Wikipedia:Plagiarism|Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution|Wikipedia:CITE#In-text attribution}}
Take care to avoid plagiarism and breaches of copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as farmuch as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]], and [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] where appropriate.
 
Material that violates the copyrights of others per [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works|contributors' rights and obligations]] should not be cited. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered [[contributory copyright infringement]]. If there is reason to believe that a source is in violation of copyright, do not cite it. ''This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as [[YouTube]], where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.''
 
===Neutrality===
Line 117 ⟶ 128:
The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
#All material in Wikipedia articles must be ''attributable'' to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
#Sources must support the material clearly and directly: [[WP:SYN|drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position]] is prohibited by the NOR policy.<ref name=Courtesy>When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.</ref>
#Base articles largely on reliable [[secondary sources]]. While [[primary sources]] are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]] section of the NOR policy, and the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources|Misuse of primary sources]] section of the BLP policy.
 
==See also==
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia_Verifiability.ogg|2006-12-04}}
* [[Argument from authority]]▼
* [[Wikipedia:Citation clutter]], an essay
* [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]], an essay
* [[Wikipedia:How to mine a source]], an essay
* [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]], a guideline
* [[Wikipedia:List of free online resources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]], an essay
* [[Wikipedia:When to cite]], an essay
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|WikiProject Resource Exchange]]
▲* [[Argument from authority]]
 
==Notes==
Line 136 ⟶ 149:
 
==Further reading==
*Wales, Jimmy. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "Insist on sources"], WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.▼
{{refbegin}}
{{Break}}
▲*Wales, Jimmy. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "Insist on sources"], WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."
{{refend}}
<br/>
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
 
[[Category:Wikipedia content policypolicies|Wikipedia:Verifiability]]
[[Category:Wikipedia verifiability| ]]
 
Line 152 ⟶ 163:
[[cs:Wikipedie:Ověřitelnost]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Belege]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Kontrolebleco]]
[[en:Wikipedia:Verifiability]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Verificabilidad]]
[[et:Vikipeedia:Usaldusväärsuse tagamine]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:اثبات‌پذیری]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Vérifiabilité]]
Line 162 ⟶ 175:
[[it:Wikipedia:Verificabilità]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:გადამოწმებადობა]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:PatikrinamumasVerifikavimas]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Ellenőrizhetőség]]
[[mk:Википедија:Проверливост]]
"https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/විකිපීඩියා:සත්‍යෝක්ෂ්‍යතාව" වෙතින් සම්ප්‍රවේශනය කෙරිණි