Wikipedia:\ Wikipedia: possible verification

oT: t[STwEBLyfBAiWikipediajx Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Wikipedia),

WP:V]B WP: V for this item is forwarded. r (Vandalism)Wikipedia:rB Troll (Vandalism) about the Wikipedia: vandalism please.

EBLyfBA{jB This document is the Japanese version of Wikipedia, an official said. pxAp]lB Many users are supported, all users are thought to be amenable. KvW\AXR~jeB[fKvB If necessary it is possible to edit the community agreed to the change must be reflected. XAm[gy[WB If you make major changes, the first page of notes to please the proposal.

V[gJbg : Shortcut: WP:V WP: V WP:VERIFY WP: VERIFY

v|: EBLyfBAfMB The gist of the document: Wikipedia, the information on what must be reliable. M\AoA_A_yc_^B Previously reliable sources disclosed, has been publishing the facts, viewpoints, and recorded only a theory and discussion, please. L\LB Possible articles stipulate the source of information should be. eAcqB The obvious source of information, said an objection can be removed.

EBLyfBAeOj Three major policies of the contents of Wikipedia

EBLyfBAMu^vu\vB Wikipedia is written in the standard of whether or not good, "whether it is the truth" but "whether or not verifiable." AEBLyfBAAM\[XijQuveB This means that Wikipedia provides us a reliable source (source) by referring to "validate" what is just. EBLyfBA\B Wikipedia to verify the possibility of a call.

\AEBLyfBALOjB The possibility of verification, Wikipedia's policy in one of the three. Au Wikipedia:I_ vAu Wikipedia: vB After two, "Wikipedia: Neutral point of view", "Wikipedia:SENAI own research." EBLyfBAjWO ALB Wikipedia policy in addition to these standard namespace, that can write articles of information to determine the type and quality. OjAB Three of these policies are mutually complementing each other, separate them apart should not be interpreted. WOjwB The editorial policy of these three together, please try to understand. Ojc_]nAKChCpmB The three-no policy is debatable, guidelines and other users will be overturned by an agreement between what is not.

[ W ] j Policy

[ W ] u^vu\v "whether or not the truth," but a "verifiable?"

ST[ALMA LMsJA\AwAAAAc_yB Encyclopedia of the compilation of a good story to write, is widely trusted by the publisher has already been released in fact, expressed the theory, views, claims, opinions, and discussion should be about the only mention. ALMB To understand that a good story to write is one of the most important secrets. EBLyfBAASAMuSTwB Wikipedia, the complete and reliable is aiming for an encyclopedia. LMA{WeA en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources i M jA oTLB When you write a story, editors and other readers to be able to verify the contents, en: Wikipedia: Reliable sources (reliable sources), we should stipulate the source.

u\vAWAj[[NE^CYLg^CB In this context, "verifiable" and the editor, for example, the New York Times article whether the contents to verify the truth of responsibility does not mean that. AWB In fact, the editor of the species are strongly urged not to investigate. EBLyfBA iIWiET[`j\B Wikipedia, because the original research (original research) should not be released. LMJB Articles by a reliable source of information is available to the public include only the subject matter. XW^vWB That individual is the editor of the truth as to whether I think does not matter. AEBLyfBAfu^vu\vi^U\jB Is contrary to intuition, on Wikipedia, whether the standards are good, "whether or not the truth" but "whether or not verifiable" (rather than verifying authenticity could).

\^AB And the truth can be verified that the difference between the following example, it is well known. AwuX_vEBLyfBALB You, a renowned physicist, "X theory" has written an article on Wikipedia. X_RowpfAEBLyfBALKB X theory, peer-reviewed after a review journals are published and therefore are suitable as a Wikipedia article. AMwAuAX_SlBvB However, the scholar wrote to you is called "To tell you the truth, the X theory is now considered to be completely wrong." Will be told. {lAEBLyfBAB You heard it from the original identity as a people, the fact that he said: Wikipedia, I do not write.

B Why not? u EBLyfBA{wW vB That "layer of visitors to Wikipedia and other editors to the satisfaction can not be verified." ANmB Readers, you do not know who he is. E{AmFAAB Viewers around the world to contact you are able to verify your contact information to put YUKIMASEN means. AA{MRB Even if you can make contact, but the view from where you will find reason to believe.

EBLyfBAAALM@b\B Wikipedia, the information will be put on a good, first, is widely trusted news organizations to persuade you to get the story must be released. A loB That is, peer-reviewed and have to go through a similar process. ALAWA`FbNB In other words, a reporter, editor and then, and perhaps to the fact that researchers will be checked. AmAW`FbNB If you have any problems, a lawyer and editor-in-chief may be checked. mF]AVmLB These facts confirm that the evaluation of the scheme, accurate and fair in the newspaper is to carry a story.

WmFAEBLyfBAB This will confirmation of the facts, Wikipedia can not provide. A j\jdvB Therefore, theSENAI original research that can be verified only policy and the policy post will be very important. iFvA@\EBLyfBAOj (Note: In other words, the equivalent of peer-reviewed feature thatMEYO outside of Wikipedia)

VbAEBLyfBALAVB If the paper carried a story you did, if only the information in writing to the Wikipedia article, the newspaper can be a source of information.

A\MiAxGVjJEBLyfBALA \B Speaking of simplicity, verifiable and reliable source of information (for example, a peer-reviewed journals and newspapers of the system) has already been released only the information that described in Wikipedia, the reader can also verify that . WAiIj\B Editors can be independently verified because it (general) to verify that possibility must be met.

[ W ] /\[X source of information / source

A en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources ( Wikipedia:M ) B For more information on this matter, en: Wikipedia: Reliable sources (Wikipedia: reliable source of information) please.

EBLyfBALAmFm]AMpOB Wikipedia's article, check the facts and have a reputation for accuracy, based on reliable sources of information should be written with a third party. wpIAsAr[ijopB For academic subjects, peer review as possible (the reviewers) should the source of the information is old. AeKIiKvjB Also, according to argue that what people should choose the proper source of information (the firm claims some rare source of information is required.)

EBLyfBA{A\{A{{ODgpB Japanese version of Wikipedia, the possible sources of information should in Japanese, always a source of information in Japanese language other than Japanese sources should be used to override. AgpA{eB The source materials were used properly, the Japanese version of the reader can easily do this in order to verify.

[ W ] oTCf] indicate the source of responsibility posted on the wish to

QlWikipedia:oTLQB For more information on how to write reference Wikipedia: to specify the source, please refer to.

oTCAWsMAWc]MB Indicate the source of responsibility, the authors have made edits, or edits the authors want to leave. AMoTLB For this reason, authors should specify the source. ]AbLEBLyfBAB Established if there is no source of information, Wikipedia article on the topic is notTERUBEKI.

MWAB Edit the lack of reliable sources of information, YAMUWOMASEN to be removed. AoT@^LqAclB However, if the source described an opportunity to remove them and challenge the person may have. LqALqm[gy[WiA Wikipedia:y[W#]L]psjB Described the lack of sources of information about the source of information for the explicit case, the description page of notes would be nice to move on (when you move, Wikipedia: # part of the page posting and integration division following the steps of history and inheritance Please.) {{ voT }} A{{ N }} A{{ oTL }} A{{ }}ev[gB Or ((& Source)), ((no)) ((Source's clear)) ((not yet verified)) and you can put a template.

lLAB People living in the articles or information about the case, the source of information is not explicitly to remove information, please immediately. l`L ( en:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ) QB People living in the biography (en: Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons) Please see also. A VsB When you remove the information, so polite, please note that.

[ W ] MR lack reliable sources of information

AMRAmF]AmF@\iuTVvjAWB In general, poor reliability and sources of information, fact-checked information about the source of bad reputation, or the fact that the function of the lack of confirmed sources of information ( "TV in the watch," etc.), or edit information on the source of the lack of supervision. .

A^uChV i[X|[cySOjMRoB The information, for example, tabloid newspapers (sports daily newspapers and evening entertainment, such as the popular press center), such as poor reliability on a single publication can not find that the only possible time. dvAB Less important is the information if you please remove it. dvclAB If the information is important and worth if you leave it by the usual sources of information, and please specify. AuCMX^uChw T xcvB For example, "British tabloid The Sun, according to ..." Please.

[ W ] \ voluntarily disclosed the information source

EFuTCg{oANB Web sites created and self-publishing a book or on their own experts have to say to anyone. AoAlEFuTCguOAKFB Therefore, the self-published materials, personal websites and blogs, in principle, as a source of appropriate information will not be granted. uOdqflB Blogs and electronic bulletin boards as a statement to introduce a similar opinion. OAALW[iXg iLj\B Exceptions can be and the more well-known expert in the field of well-known scientists and journalists (press) when you voluntarily disclosed. lMOoAl\FB The people's trust in the past has been published by a third party if the person voluntarily disclosed acknowledged as a source of information also can be good. AB However, please note that. uOf{lANMB If the professional researchers have the information posted on the blog I would write something of value, somebody else would have already been written.

[ W ] \FTCg self-published sources of information: The official site

\MRAgLAgpB Self-published material or any other reliable source of information to the poor even article about their own sources of information, the information can be used as a source. AStormfrontEFuTCgAdvAxAO\MAStormfrontLStormfrontggpB For example, Stormfront's website, the information is important and that excessive self-beautification, was released by a trusted third party sources of information are not inconsistent with, Stormfront Stormfront article about himself in Can be used as a source of information.

AMRVEBLyfBALAVLKvAOVLiAbMOfAjB For example, poor reliability of Wikipedia articles about writing a newspaper if the newspaper article was an example of the need for a third party's claim about the paper should not be mentioned (although the same The story credible source of information by third parties that are listed, you are not limited to).

[ W ] A caveats

Pu\vAEBLyfBAB Simply a matter of "verifiable" But I wrote that Wikipedia may not. Wikipedia:EBLyfBAB Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not what you please. Au^vAEBLyfBAu\vvAEBLyfBAftvB In addition, the "truth" of being alone, Wikipedia, the information is "verifiable" requirement, that is to be posted on Wikipedia is a source of information must be given to meet the demand Does not mean that. iA{ATEjB (Of course, the information is true, I just had to be found is the source of authority). AuvuMvAEBLyfBAAB Will return back, "proprietary research", "reliable sources" are not on the table because I can not accept Wikipedia, you can say. Wikipedia:B Wikipedia:SENAI own research please.

[ W ] j^LgDX recommendation of the historian Tacitus

[ W ] A See also

• Wikipedia:I_ Wikipedia: Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia: Wikipedia:SENAI their own research
• Wikipedia:EBLyfBA Wikipedia: What is Wikipedia?

• en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check en: Wikipedia: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• en:Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards en: Wikipedia: Forum for Encyclopedic Standards
• en:Wikipedia:Stable versions en: Wikipedia: Stable versions
• en:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons en: Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons
• en:Wikipedia:Criticism en: Wikipedia: Criticism