വിക്കിപീഡിയ:വിശ്വസനീയമായ സ്രോതസ്സുകൾ കണ്ടുപിടിക്കുന്നത്

ഈ താൾ വിക്കിപീഡിയയുടെ പരിശോധനായോഗ്യത സംബന്ധിച്ച മാർഗ്ഗരേഖയായി കണക്കാക്കുന്നു. ഇത് സംശോധകർ പൊതുവായി അംഗീകരിച്ചതും ഉപയോക്താക്കൾ പിന്തുടരേണ്ടതുമാണ്. എന്നിരുന്നാലും ഇവിടുത്തെ പ്രതിപാദ്യങ്ങൾ സാമാന്യബോധത്തിനും സന്ദർഭാനുസരണവും ഉപയോഗിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. ഈ താൾ തിരുത്തുവാൻ താങ്കൾ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നുവെങ്കിൽ, ആ പ്രവൃത്തി അഭിപ്രായ ഐക്യത്തോട് കൂടിയാണെന്ന് ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുക. എന്തെങ്കിലും സംശയം തോന്നിയാൽ സംവാദത്താളിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യാവുന്നതാണ്.

ചുരുക്കെഴുത്തുകൾ WP:RS WP:RELY

ഈ താളിന്റെ രത്നച്ചുരുക്കം: വിശ്വസനീയമായ സ്രോതസ്സുകൾ കണ്ടുപിടിക്കുന്നതെങ്ങിനെ എന്നാണ് ഈ മാർഗ്ഗരേഖ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യുന്നത്. പരിശോധനായോഗ്യതയാണ് സ്രോതസ്സുകൾ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്നതുസംബന്ധിച്ച അടിസ്ഥാന നയം. ഇതിന് ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെടുകയോ ചോസ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെടാൻ സാദ്ധ്യതയുള്ളതോ ആയ എല്ലാ പ്രസ്താവനകൾക്കും എല്ലാ ഉദ്ധരണികൾക്കും ഇൻലൈൻ അവലംബങ്ങൾ ആവശ്യമാണ്.

പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടതും വിശ്വസനീയവുമായ സ്രോതസ്സുകൾ ആസ്പദമാക്കിയാവണം വിക്കിപീഡിയ ലേഖനങ്ങൾ എഴുതപ്പെടുന്നത്. ഈ സ്രോതസ്സുകളിൽ പരാമർശിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ള എല്ലാ ഭൂരിപക്ഷാഭിപ്രായങ്ങളും പ്രാധാന്യമുള്ള ന്യൂനപക്ഷാഭിപ്രായങ്ങളും ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തപ്പെറ്റിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുക. (വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സന്തുലിതമായ കാഴ്ച്ചപ്പാട് കാണുക).

വിവിധതരം സ്രോതസ്സുകളുടെ വിശ്വസനീയതയാണ് ഈ താളിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യുന്നത്. സ്രോതസ്സുകൾ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്നതുസംബന്ധിച്ച നയം പരിശോധനായോഗ്യതയാണ്. എല്ലാ ഉദ്ധരണികൾക്കും കൂടാതെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടതോ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടേയ്ക്കാൻ സാദ്ധ്യതയുള്ളതോ ആയ എല്ലാ പ്രസ്താവനകൾക്കും ഇൻലൈൻ സൈറ്റേഷനുകൾ വേണമെന്നാണ് ഈ നയം വ്യവസ്ഥ ചെയ്യുന്നത്. ലേഖനങ്ങളുടെയോ പട്ടികകളുടെയോ പ്രധാന ഭാഗത്തുള്ള എല്ലാ വിവരങ്ങൾക്കും ഈ ഈ വ്യവസ്ഥ ബാധകമാണ്. ജീവിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നവരുടെ ജീവചരിത്രങ്ങൾക്ക് ഇത് പരമപ്രധാനമാണ്:

ജീവിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നവരെയോ (അല്ലെങ്കിൽ അടുത്തകാലത്ത് മരിച്ചവരെയോ) സംബന്ധിച്ചുള്ളതായ സ്രോതസ്സുകളില്ലാത്തതോ മോശം സ്രോതസ്സുകളുള്ളതോ ആയ വിവരങ്ങൾ —അവ നല്ലതോ, ചീത്തയോ, നിഷ്പക്ഷമോ, ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടേയ്ക്കാവുന്നതു മാത്രമോ ആയിക്കൊള്ളട്ടെ—ഉടനടി ചർച്ചകളൊന്നും കൂടാതെ തന്നെ നീക്കം ചെയ്യണം.

ഈ ലേഖനവും സ്രോതസ്സുകൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നതും ഉദ്ധരിക്കുന്നതും സംബന്ധിച്ച നയങ്ങളും തമ്മിൽ എന്തെങ്കിലും ഭിന്നതകളുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ നയങ്ങൾക്കാണ് പ്രാധാന്യം നൽകേണ്ടത്. ഉപയോക്താക്കൾ ഇത്തരം ഭിന്നതകൾ ദൂരീകരിക്കാൻ ശ്രമിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. വിക്കിപീഡിയ:കണ്ടെത്തലുകൾ അരുത്, വിക്കിപീഡിയ:ജീവിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നവരുടെ ജീവചരിത്രം എന്നിവയാണ് ഇതുസംബന്ധിച്ച നയങ്ങളുൾപ്പെടുന്ന മറ്റു താളുകൾ.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book),
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

• Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.
• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.
• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.^[1]

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.^[2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.^[3][4]
• For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name.
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.^[5]
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source.
• News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies.
• One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim.

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

• {{fact}} or {{cn}} – adds: ^{[അവലംബം ആവശ്യമാണ്]}
• {{vc}} or {{rs}} – adds: ^{[വിശ്വസനീയമല്ലാത്ത അവലംബം?]}

നയങ്ങളും മാർഗ്ഗനിർദ്ദേശങ്ങളും

• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories
• Wikipedia:No original research

ഉപന്യാസങ്ങൾ

• Wikipedia:Cherrypicking
• Wikipedia:Common knowledge
• Wikipedia:How to mine a source
• Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Wikipedia:Independent sources
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Wikipedia:Offline sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws
• Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources
• Wikipedia:Video links
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia clones

Locating reliable sources

• Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources
• Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects

ഉപകരണങ്ങൾ

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist provides a ref vetting method

മറ്റുള്ളവ

• Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources
• Wikipedia:News sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard – obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches – Signpost article
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• Change detection and notification
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
• Munroe, Randal (16 November 2011). "Citogenesis (Where citations come from)". xkcd. — a cautionary tale.