Wikipedia

"Wikipedia:Virificabbilità" : Diffirenzi ntrê virsioni

Naviga nella cronologia in modo interattivo
← Diffirenza pricidentiDiffirenza succissiva →
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
VisualiWikitestu
Addbot (discussioni | cuntribbuti)
19 394 modifiche
n Bot: Migrating 46 interwiki links, now provided by Wikidata on d:q79951 (translate me)
Canciamenti nichi
Riga 1:
{{WIP|Maurice Carbonaro}}
<!--
{{redirect|WP:V|vandalism on Wikipedia|WP:VAND}}
Line 13 ⟶ 12:
 
A [[Wikipedia:Virificabbilità|Virificabbilità]] eni lu torsulu di li pulitichi di cundotta Wikipedia.<rb>
L'autri sunu [[Wikipedia:nenti ricerchi urigginali|nenti ricerchi urigginali]] and [[Wikipedia:NPOV|Puntu di Vista Niutrali]]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. To discuss the reliability of particular sources, see the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]].
 
==Burden of evidence==
{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN|WP:PROVEIT}}
:''For how to write citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]''
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|inline citation]].<ref>When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable ''if'' they provide ''clear and precise'' attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources]].</ref> The source cited must directly support the information as it is presented in the article.<ref>When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.</ref> The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
 
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{tl|fact}} template, a section with {{tl|unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{tl|refimprove}} or {{tl|unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.
 
Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] for details of this policy). As Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has put it:
 
{{Jimboquote|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>{{cite web|title="Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"|publisher=WikiEN-l [[electronic mailing list]] archive|author=Jimmy Wales|date=2006-05-16|accessdate=2006-06-11|url=http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html}}</ref>}}
 
==Sources==
{{policy shortcut|WP:SOURCES}}
:{{see also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources}}
 
===Reliable sources===
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.<ref>The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.</ref> Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright violations]]. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources |exceptional claims]] require high-quality sources.
 
In general, the most reliable sources are [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
 
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.
 
For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] (WP:RS). Because [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies take precedence over guidelines]], in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]].
 
All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality policy]], fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough [[WP:UNDUE|proportion]] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories [[WP:UNDUE|need not be included]], except in articles devoted to them.
 
<span id="dubious_sources"></span><span id="sources_of_dubious_reliability"></span>
 
===Self-published sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:SPS}}
Anyone can create a website or [[vanity press|pay to have a book published]], then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open [[wiki]]s, [[blog]]s, [[knol]]s, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.<ref>"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.</ref>
 
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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'''. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.
 
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]].
 
Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources.
 
<span id="self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author(s)"></span><span id="self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves"></span>
 
===Questionable sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:QS}}
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described [[#Self-published and questionable sources about themselves|below]]. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
 
<span id="SELF"></span><span id="self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)"></span>
===Self-published and questionable sources about themselves===
{{policy shortcut|WP:SELFQUEST|WP:SELFPUB}}
 
Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:
# the material used is relevant to the [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] of the subject being discussed;
# it is not [[Wiktionary:contentious|contentious]];
# it 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 subject;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 
===Non-English sources===
{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:VUE|WP:NONENG}}
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, ''assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality'', so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a [[WP:FN|footnote]] or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.
 
==Exceptional claims require exceptional sources==
{{policy shortcut|WP:REDFLAG}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Fringe theories}}
 
Certain '''[[Red flag (signal)|red flag]]s''' should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] to silence them.
 
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] and the [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] provision of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
 
==See also==
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia_Verifiability.ogg|2006-12-04}}
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]
* [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|WikiProject Resource Exchange]]
* [[Wikipedia:Free online resources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]]
 
==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}
 
==Further reading==
* [[Jimmy Wales]]. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "WikiEN-l insist on sources"], WikiEN-l mailing list, July 19, 2006.
* [http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp False Authority] On the importance of looking for many sources.
 
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
 
[[pt:Wikipedia:Verificabilidade]]
Estrattu di "https://scn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Virificabbilità"