车讯:新款林肯MKZ正式上市 售价28.48-38.88万
 | ?? ??????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? |
- ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ????, ????????????? ????, ??:????? ?????
 |
?? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? |
 |
???????? ?? ????????: ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????????, ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? |
| ???????????? ?????? ?????? |
|---|
| ??? ?????????? ???????? |
|
???????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?????????????? |
| ?? ?????????? ???????? |
|
???????? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ??????????? ?? ???? |
???????????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? ??? – ???????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ????, ??? ??????????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????
? ?? ????? ?????? ????, ????? ????????? ?’?? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???????????, ???????? ??? ??? ?????, ???? ????????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ?'?? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????
?? ???? ????????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? – ???????, ??????, ???????? ???, ??? ????? – ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????, ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????
?????????????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ??? ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ? ?? ????????? ???? ?????????? ????????????, ??????????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?’? ????? ???????????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????
??????? ??????????? ???? ???????? ???
[???????? ???]
?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????
[???????? ???]?????? ???? ?'? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?????, ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????
??????? ????????
[???????? ???]??????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?’? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? living people ???? ?????see here for how the BLP policy applies to groups.[1]
???????????? ???
[???????? ???]??????????? ??? ??????
[???????? ???]The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the 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 New York Times). All three can affect reliability.
Base articles on reliable, 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.
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
[???????? ???]Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.[2] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Never use posts left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see below.
Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS
[???????? ???]To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the 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, the policy has priority.
????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ????
[???????? ???]?????????? ???
[???????? ???]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 below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
????-???????? ???
[???????? ???]?????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???-???????? ??????, ???? ?????, ???????, ????? ????, ????????? ???????, ????? ????, ????????? ?? ???? ????, ????????? ????? ???????, ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ???-???????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ???? ????, ??? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ???: ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ???, ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ???’??? ???? ??????
???? ??????? ??? ????????, ???????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?’??? ???-???????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????
???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???
[???????? ???]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;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- 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.
??????????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ???
[???????? ???]Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to 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 sourcing. Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.
??????
[???????? ???]???? ??????
[???????? ???]Verifiability in this context means 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. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material.
???-??????? ???
[???????? ???]Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.
- 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.[3]
Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.
???????? ?????
[???????? ???]?????, ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???
[???????? ???]If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates are available here for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page.
?????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ???? ????????
[???????? ???]Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[4] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream 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 to silence them.
??????????? ??? ??? ???????? ????
[???????? ???]??????? ??? ????-???
[???????? ???]Take care to avoid plagiarism and breaches of copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as far as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.
??????????
[???????? ???]All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.
?????????????
[???????? ???]Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline says that the subject's notability is established by the publication of independent, reliable sources, regardless of whether the names of any such sources have yet been typed into the article. If such sources can not be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
????? ??????
[???????? ???]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 the source is cited in the article.
- Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[3]
- 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 Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.
???? ????
[???????? ???]- Wikipedia:Citation clutter, an essay
- Wikipedia:Core content policies, an essay
- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), a guideline
- Wikipedia:List of free online resources
- Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles
- Wikipedia:When to cite, an essay
- WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
- WikiProject Resource Exchange
- Argument from authority
????
[???????? ???]- ↑ Wales, Jimmy. "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."
- ↑ Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 29, 2010.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 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.
- ↑ Hume, David. 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."
??? ????
[???????? ???]- Wales, Jimmy. "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."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||