|
===== '''My biogrΔpy''' =====
{{pedoman|pintas=[[WP:ST]]}}
--[[Pengguna:Dadan putera|Dadan putera]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dadan putera|bicara]]) 29 November 2013 13.29 (UTC)
{{ringkasan|Artikel harus bersumber dari sumber-sumber '''terpercaya''' dan '''terpublikasi''' dari '''pihak ketiga''' yang memiliki reputasi dengan pengecekan fakta dan akurasinya}}
[[Wikipedia:Apa yang dinamakan artikel|Artikel-artikel]] [[Wikipedia]] harus menggunakan '''sumber terpercaya yang dipublikasikan'''. Halaman ini memberikan pedoman bagaimana mengidentifikasikan sumber-sumber tersebut. Halaman kebijakan yang mendiskusikan perlunya menggunakan sumber adalah [[Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli]] dan [[Wikipedia:Pemastian]].
Here is a biographical data '''Dadan Putra Pradana'''
Jika Anda dapat memberikan informasi yang berguna untuk Wikipedia, silakan lakukan itu, tapi harap dicamkan bahwa tanggung jawab untuk menemukan sumber rujukan ada pada orang yang menambahkan bahan pada suatu artikel. Sumber harus diberikan sebisa mungkin; suntingan tanpa rujukan atau diragukan rujukannya dapat dipertanyakan dan dibuang setiap saat. Kadang lebih baik tidak memiliki informasi sama sekali dari pada memiliki informasi tanpa rujukan. <ref>[[Jimmy Wales]], [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050766.html "Insist on sources"], WikiEN-l, 19 Juli 2006.</ref>
PERSONAL OF DATA :
Full Name : DadΔn Putra Pradana
== Beberapa definisi ==
Popular Name : DhΔnz
The first name given by his : Riki Due to it's name does not match [Have a suggestion which can make me die] I do not know
father and mother 'almost dying' my parents call the paranormal change my name into '''DADAN PUTRA PRADANA'''
Name calling parents and friends : My grandmother likes to call [aday] Peers and friends like to call me all the community ''Patkay'' or [Kay]
Places & Date of Birthday : Garut August 30, 1992
Religion : Islam
''''''EDUCATION OF DATA ''''''
* '''[[Sumber primer]]''' adalah dokumen atau orang yang memberikan kesaksian langsung terhadap suatu keadaan atau peristiwa; dengan kata lain, suatu sumber yang sangat dekat dengan kejadian yang Anda tuliskan. Istilah ini paling sering merujuk pada suatu dokumen yang dihasilkan oleh partisipan pada suatu peristiwa atau seorang pengamat dari peristiwa tersebut. Sumber ini dapat berupa laporan resmi, surat, catatan saksi, otobiografi, atau statistik yang dikompilasi oleh pihak yang berwenang. Bahan sumber primer mungkin membutuhkan suatu pelatihan untuk dapat dipergunakan dengan tepat, terutama pada topik-topik sejarah. Artikel Wikipedia dapat menggunakan sumber primer hanya jika sumber-sumber ini telah dipublikasikan oleh penerbit tepercaya, misalnya traskrip pengadilan yang dipublikasikan oleh stenografer pengadilan, dan hanya dapat dipergunakan semata-mata untuk pernyataan deskriptif. Lihat [[Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli]] dan [[Wikipedia:Pemastian]].
SMK [sekolah menengah kejuruan] : SMK PLUS AL-ITTIHAD CIANJUR [Software engineering]& Qurota'Ayun [Computer engineering and network]in 2011
* '''[[Sumber sekunder]]''' menyimpulkan satu atau lebih sumber pertama atau kedua. Secara umum, artikel-artikel Wikipedia harus berdasar atas sumber sekunder tepercaya.
Employment : Scholar, Master the art of [Honoree], of music Traveller
* '''[[Sumber tersier]]''' biasanya menyimpulkan sumber sekunder. Ensiklopedia, termasuk Wikipedia, adalah sumber tersier. Artikel-artikel Wikipedia tidak boleh mengutip artikel Wikipedia lain sebagai sumber, karena Wikipedia adalah suatu wiki yang dapat disunting oleh siapapun dan karenanya tidak dapat dipercaya. Walaupun demikian, Wikipedia dapat digunakan sebagai sumber primer mengenai Wikipedia, sesuai dengan batasan di atas. Publikasi seperti ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', ''[[World Book]]'', dan ''[[Encarta]]'' dianggap sebagai sumber tepercaya.
WORK EXPERIENCE OF DATA : Only God, parents, my close friends who know
'''BIOGRAPHY OF DADAN PUTRA PRADANA'''
== Tingkat ketepercayaan sumber ==
Berdasarkan sifat publikasi yang dimiliki oleh sumber yang diterbitkan, ketepercayaan suatu sumber untuk dijadikan rujukan artikel bisa diklasifikasikan sebagai berikut:
# Daftar referensi yang bisa dipercaya
## Jurnal ilmiah yang sudah dipublikasikan
## Karya Tugas Akhir; Skripsi, Disertasi, Thesis yang sudah diuji oleh ahli
## Karangan ilmiah yang sudah diuji oleh ahli
## Buku yang diterbitkan oleh penerbit tepercaya dan disunting oleh editor
## Buku yang diterbitkan oleh penerbit yang kurang tepercaya tetapi sudah disunting editor
## Tulisan biasa dengan referensi jelas
## Majalah Ilmu pengetahuan/Sains
## Tabloid Ilmu pengetahuan/Sains
## Artikel yang ditulis di internet dengan referensi jelas dari sumber non internet
# Daftar referensi yang tidak disarankan untuk digunakan
## Buku yang diterbitkan oleh penerbit yang kurang tepercaya dan tidak disunting editor
## Artikel yang ditulis di internet dengan referensi jelas dari sumber internet
## Artikel yang ditulis dan dicetak dengan referensi dari internet
# Daftar referensi yang sebaiknya tidak digunakan
## Koran (Bagian bahasan tentang biografi seseorang dan catatan peristiwa) <!-- bagian biografi & catatan peristiwa diperbolehkan, bagian lainnya tidak diperbolehkan -->
## Majalah
## Sampul kaset
## Buku yang ditulis sendiri oleh subjek yang bersangkutan
# Daftar referensi yang perlu dihindari
## Majalah yang membahas isu populer
## Koran (Bagian selain bahasan biografi seseorang dan catatan peristiwa) <!-- bagian biografi & catatan peristiwa diperbolehkan, bagian lainnya tidak diperbolehkan -->
## Koran Kriminal
## Tabloid Gossip
## Artikel lain di wikipedia
## Artikel lain dari ensiklopedia bebas dengan sistem mirip wikipedia (bebas disunting siapa saja)
Telitilah dengan hati-hati termasuk kategori manakah sumber yang akan anda pakai. Jika kebenaran dan motif sumber tersebut diragukan kenetralannya, lebih baik tinggalkan. Artikel yang miskin informasi jauh lebih baik daripada artikel berat sebelah.
== Meminta sumber ==
Selalu layak untuk meminta penyunting lain untuk memberikan sumber-sumber mereka. [[Beban pembuktian|Beban untuk memberikan bukti]] ada pada penyunting yang memasukkan suntingan yang dipertanyakan, dan semua bahan tanpa sumber dapat dibuang oleh penyunting lain. Walaupun demikian, beberapa pengguna dapat mempertanyakan jika Anda membuang suatu bahan tanpa memberi kesempatan orang lain untuk mencari sumbernya, terutama jika suatu bahan tidak terang-terangan salah, mustahil, atau membahayakan. Dari pada menghapus langsung bahan-bahan semacam itu, penyunting disarankan untuk memindahkannya ke halaman pembicaraan, atau meletakkan templat {{tl|fact}} setelah kata atau kalimat yang dipermasalahkan, atau memberikan {{tl|butuh verifikasi}} dan {{tl|tanpa referensi}} di bagian atas halaman. Lihat [[Wikipedia:Pemastian]] dan [[Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli]], yang merupakan kebijakan, serta [[:en:Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]].
Jangan menghapus pernyataan yang Anda pikir adalah benar dan merupakan [[Wikipedia:pengetahuan umum|pengetahuan umum]], hanya karena tidak disertai sumber. Janganlah, sebagai contoh, menghapus kalimat "orbit elips bumi" hanya karena penulis tidak memberikan suatu sumber yang mendukung pernyataan bahwa orbit planet adalah berbentuk elips.
== Biografi tokoh yang masih hidup ==
{{see also|Wikipedia:Biografi tokoh yang masih hidup|Wikipedia:Fitnah}}
Bahan-bahan yang dipertanyakan dan tanpa atau kurang disertai rujukan, baik negatif atau positif, dalam artikel mengenai tokoh yang masih hidup harus dihapus secepatnya dan tidak harus dipindahkan ke halaman pembicaraan. Hal yang sama berlaku untuk bagian-bagian pada artikel jenis lain yang berhubungan dengan tokoh yang masih hidup. Akan ada orang yang dapat terluka perasaannya karena kata-kata Anda. Kita bukanlah jurnalis tabloid, kita adalah ensiklopedia.<ref>Jimmy Wales tentang "''Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information''" [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html] [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046723.html] [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046725.html] [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046726.html]</ref>
== Hati-hati terhadap otoritas palsu ==
Berhati-hatilah terhadap pernyataan otoritas palsu. Situs web yang memiliki banyak catatan kaki mungkin saja seluruhnya tidak dapat dipercaya. Pertanyaan pertama yang harus Anda ajukan adalah, "Apakah wewenang dan keahlian dari orang-orang yang bertanggungjawab terhadap suatu situs web?" Siapapun dapat memuat apapun di web.
Pilihlah sumber dengan tingkat doktoral yang terkait atau keahlian terkenal dalam bidang yang mereka diskusikan. Reputasi yang lebih besar dimiliki oleh mereka yang berafiliasi dengan institusi akademik. Reputasi tertinggi dimiliki oleh orang-orang yang telah menulis buku teks dalam bidangnya: pengarang-pengarang buku ini dapat diharapkan memiliki pemahaman yang luas dan otoritatif mengenai subjek mereka. Secara umum buku teks pendidikan tinggi kerap direvisi dan berupaya untuk menjadi otoritatif. Buku teks yang ditujukan untuk murid sekolah menengah tidak mencoba untuk itu dan kadang menjadi subjek persetujuan politik di beberapa negara.
;Otoritas pengarang : Pilihlah pengarang dengan reputasi yang mapan di bidang di mana Wikipedia menggunakan rujukan mereka.
;Otoritas sumber dasar : Lihatlah sumber yang digunakan oleh sumber Anda. Jika sumber asli lemah, kualitas informasipun kemungkinan tidak dapat ditingkatkan hanya dengan mengolahnya melalui sumber tepercaya.
== Pernyataan luar biasa membutuhkan bukti luar biasa ==
Tanda-tanda tertentu dapat memperingatkan pengguna untuk menyelidiki sumber dari suatu pernyataan.
* Pernyataan mengejutkan atau tampak penting yang tidak dikenal secara luas.
* Laporan mengejutkan atau tampak penting yang tidak diliput oleh media berita ternama.
* Laporan mengenai pernyataan dari seseorang yang tampaknya di luar kebiasaan mereka, memalukan, kontroversial, atau berlawanan dengan pandangan yang sebelumnya mereka pertahankan.
* Klaim yang tak didukung atau kontradiktif dengan pandangan umum di kalangan akademisi yang relevan. Terutama berhati-hatilah jika suatu pendukung berkata bahwa ada suatu konspirasi untuk membungkam mereka.
Klaim yang luar biasa harus didukung oleh beberapa sumber yang memiliki reputasi dan dapat diverifikasi, terutama menyangkut peristiwa lampau atau masalah yang berbau politis.
<!--
== Using online and self-published sources ==
===Evaluating reliability===
Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.
Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically [[peer reviewed]] publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers.
* With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
* Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures.
=== Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet ===
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. In certain rare cases, specific blogs may be exceptions - see the section on [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources|self-published sources]].
The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as [[IMDb]] or [http://www.funtrivia.com/en/ FunTrivia.com], where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the [http://imdb.com/wga Writer's Guild of America] and can be considered reliable.
===Self-published sources===
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and [[Weblog|blogs]] are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions to this may be when a '''well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise''', or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these ''may'' be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.
However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.
====YouTube====
Some [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#External_Links_and_YouTube|concerns]] have been raised about the use of [[YouTube]] as a source. YouTube is a website where the contributors are unknown, and in which material that may be useful to Wikipedia articles is almost always suspect of copyright violations. As such, linking to video content in YouTube should almost always be avoided as a source.
===Self-published sources in articles about the writers of those sources===
Self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about in articles about the writers/publishers of those sources, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote them, and where the material is:
* relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
* not contentious;
* not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
* about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;
The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.
===Self-published sources as secondary sources===
'''Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.''' That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.
Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.
=== Partisan and extremist websites ===
The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.
Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.
===Company and organization websites===
Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain [[WP:NPOV|a neutral point of view]]. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.
===Wikisource===
If you find a print source that is out of copyright or that is available on compatible licensing terms, add it to [[Wikisource]] and link to it there (in addition to the normal scholarly citation). Many significant out-of-copyright books have already been put online by other projects.
-->
== Menemukan sumber yang baik ==
Sampai lebih banyak lagi penulis yang menerbitkan tulisan mereka melalui Internet, dan lebih banyak lagi bahan yang dimuat, beberapa sumber paling tepercaya dan informatif masih dapat diperoleh hanya dalam bentuk tercetak. Jika Anda tidak dapat menemukan sumber yang baik melalui Internet, cobalah mencari di perpustakaan atau toko buku lokal. Perpustakaan perguruan tinggi ternama biasanya memiliki koleksi yang lebih banyak dibandingkan perpustakaan daerah.
Pengecekan fakta dan penelusuran rujukan dapat menyita waktu. [[Perpustakaan umum]] atau [[perpustakaan|akademik]] mungkin tidak menyediakan karya yang dirujuk oleh suatu artikel dalam koleksi mereka. Sering kali Anda dapat meminta suatu buku melalui pinjaman antar perpustakaan, tapi kadang hal ini membutuhkan waktu beberapa minggu untuk menunggu rujukan yang Anda minta datang. Banyak alat yang tersedia secara ''online'' yang dapat mempermudah upaya ini. Layanan-layanan baru seperti [http://books.google.com Google Books], [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/10197041/qid=1147269606/sr=1-1/002-0799179-8195209 "''search inside!''" dari Amazon.com], [http://www.archive.org/details/millionbooks ''Million Book Project'' dari Internet Archive] serta [http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/ ''Making of America'' dari University of Michigan] mengizinkan Anda untuk mencari seluruh teks dari ribuan buku. Sebagai tambahan, banyak layanan dengan pendaftaran yang serupa yang mungkin tersedia melalui perpustakaan umum atau akademik Anda.
Jika Anda menggunakan salah satu dari layanan-layanan ini, yakinkan untuk mengumpulkan semua informasi yang dapat Anda temukan dengan memilih pranala seperti "Mengenai buku ini". Anda harus dapat membentuk suatu pengutipan persis seperti apa yang Anda lakukan dengan publikasi tercetak. Jika ada [[ISBN]] untuk buku tersebut, yakinkan untuk menyertakannya. Gunakan ISBN untuk merujuk pada buku tersebut, karena beberapa situs ini hanya menampilkan bahan terpilih dari buku yang disediakan ''online''.
Catatan: Layanan seperti Google Books kadang memiliki teks hasil pemindai yang kurang bagus. Hal ini terutama berlaku bagi nama dan kata dengan aksen di mana pencarian kadang tidak menghasilkan apapun. Cara mengatasinya adalah dengan mencari kesalahan umum dari OCR.
Halaman istimewa Wikipedia '''Sumber buku''' akan mengizinkan pembaca untuk memilih nomor ISBN dari buku yang dikutip dan mencari berbagai basis data perpustakaan untuk menemukannya. Sebagai contoh, kutipan:
:Harvey, Andrew, ''Songs of Kabir'', Weiser Books (January 2002), ISBN 1-57863-249-8
Mengklik nomer ISBN akan mengizinkan pengguna untuk "menemukan buku ini" di Amazon.com, perpustakaan umum, dll.
== Sumber dalam bahasa lain selain bahasa Indonesia ==
Karena ini adalah Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, untuk kenyamanan pembaca kita, sumber berbahasa Indonesia sebaiknya diberikan jika memungkinkan, dan sebaiknya lebih diutamakan dari pada sumber berbahasa asing jika memiliki kualitas dan tingkat kepercayaan yang sama. Meskipun demikian, sumber berbahasa asing, terutama bahasa Inggris, juga dapat diterima dengan kriteria verifikasi yang sama dengan sumber-sumber berbahasa Indonesia.
Harap diperhatikan bahwa penerjemahan, baik yang dilakukan oleh kontributor Wikipedia atau penerjemah profesional, tidak terlepas dari kemungkinan kesalahan. Pada prinsipnya, pembaca harus diberi kesempatan untuk memastikan sendiri apa yang sebenarnya disampaikan oleh sumber asli, bahwa sumber tersebut dipublikasikan oleh sumber tepercaya, dan bahwa sumber tersebut telah diterjemahkan dengan tepat.
Karenanya, jika bahan asli menggunakan bahasa selain bahasa Indonesia:
* Jika sumber tersebut dikutip secara langsung, terjemahan terpublikasi secara umum lebih dipilih dari pada terjemahan langsung oleh seorang penyunting.
* Jika seorang penyunting menggunakan terjemahannya sendiri dari suatu sumber yang bukan bahasa Indonesia sebagai kutipan dalam suatu artikel, harus diberikan kutipan jelas dari bahasa asalnya, sehingga pembaca dapat mengecek apa yang dikatakan oleh sumber asli dan akurasi dari penerjemahan tersebut.
<!--
== Advice specific to subject area ==
=== History ===
The [[American Historical Review]] reviews around 1,000 books each year.
''[http://www.historians.org/pubs/research.cfm#norton The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature]'' (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history.
Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues. To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents. In recent decades, many more primary documents (such as letters and papers of historical figures) have been made easily available in bound volumes or online. For instance, the [http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/volumes.html Jefferson Papers] project at Princeton begun in 1950 has just published volume 30, reaching February 1801. More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the ''London Times'', the ''New York Times'' and other major newspapers. Some of these are proprietary and must be accessed through libraries; others such as [http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/index.html “Making of America”], publishing of 19th century magazines, are open to the public.
Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards. Reputable history books and journal articles always include footnotes and bibliographies giving the sources used in great detail. Most journals contain book reviews by scholars that evaluate the quality of new books, and usually summarize some of their new ideas. The ''American Historical Review'' (all fields of history) and ''Journal of American History'' (US history) each publish 1000 or more full-length reviews a year. Many of the major journals are online, as far back as 1885, especially through [http://JSTOR.org JSTOR.org]. A good book or article will spell out the historiographical debates that are ongoing, and alert readers to other major studies.
On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. Useful access points include: scholar.google.com and books.google.com, and (through libraries) ABC-CLIO’s two abstract services, ''American: History and Life'' (for journal articles and book reviews dealing with the US and Canada), and ''Historical Abstracts'' (for the rest of the world.) Research libraries will hold paper guides to authoritative sources. The most useful is ''The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature,'' edited by Mary Beth Norton and Pamela Gerardi 2 vol (1995), which is an annotated bibliography of authoritative sources in all fields of history.
In historical pages the user is assisted by having an annotated bibliography of the best resources. Users will often have to use inter-library loan to obtain books, so a short annotation explaining the value and POV of the book may be helpful.
There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia. ''General'' encyclopedias, like the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' or ''Encarta'', sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.
College textbooks are updated every few years, are evaluated by many specialists, and usually try to keep abreast of the scholarship, but they are often without footnotes and usually do not spell out the historiographical debates. Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Wikipedia editors. Every place has guide books, which usually contain a capsule history of the area, but the great majority do not pretend to be authoritative.
On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution.
The general public mostly gets its history from novels, films, TV shows, or tour guides at various sites. These sources are full of rumor and gossip and false or exaggerated tales. They tend to present rosy-colored histories in which the well-known names are portrayed heroically. Almost always editors can find much more authoritative sources.
* See also [[Historiography]]
=== Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine ===
==== Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus ====
Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is [[peer-review]]ed. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report what is in the opinion of the editors unimportant or questionable research. In particular be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the [[Marty Rimm]] and [[Sokal affair|Sokal]] affairs.)
The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the [[Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy]] and the [[Jan Hendrik Schön|Schön affair]].)
Honesty and the policies of [[WP:N|neutrality]] and [[WP:NOR|No original research]] demand that we present the prevailing "[[scientific consensus]]". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The [[scientific consensus]] can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.
There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View]].)
Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.
==== In science, avoid citing the popular press ====
The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.
What can a popular-press article on scientific research provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers.
==== Which science journals are reputable? ====
One method to determine which journals are held in high esteem by scientists is to look at [[impact factor]] ratings, which track how many times a given journal is cited by articles in other publications. Be aware, however, that these impact factors are not necessarily valid for all academic fields and specialties.
In general, journals published by prominent scientific societies are of better quality than those produced by commercial publishers. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' is among the most highly regarded; the journals ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' and ''[[Cell (journal)|Cell]]'' are notable non-society publications.
Keep in mind that even a reputable journal may occasionally post a retraction of an experimental result. Articles may be selected on the grounds that they are interesting or highly promising, not merely because they seem reliable.
==== arXiv preprints and conference abstracts ====
There are a growing number of sources on the web that publish preprints of articles and conference abstracts, the most popular of these being [[arXiv]]. Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there. For this reason, arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published, as they have not been published by a [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|third-party source]], and should be treated in the same way as other self-published material. See the section above on [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#self-published sources|self-published sources]]. Most of them are also ''primary sources'', to be treated with the caution as described in various sections of this guideline.
Researchers may publish on arXiv for different reasons: to establish priority in a competitive field, to make available newly developed methods to the scientific community while the publication is undergoing peer-review (a specially lengthy process in mathematics), and sometimes to publish a paper that has been rejected from several journals or to bypass peer-review for publications of dubious quality. Editors should be aware that preprints in such collections, like those in the [[arXiv]] collection, may or may not be accepted by the journal for which they were written — in some cases they are written solely for the arXiv and are never submitted for publication. Similarly, material presented at a conference may not merit publication in a scientific journal.
==== Evaluating experiments and studies ====
There are techniques that scientists use to prevent common errors, and to help others replicate results. Some characteristics to look for are [[experimental control]] (such as [[placebo]] controls), and [[double-blind]] methods for medical studies. Detail about the design and implementation of the experiment should be available, as well as raw data. Reliable studies don't just present conclusions.
=== Statistics ===
Statistical information is easily and often misinterpreted by the public, by journalists, and by scientists. It should be checked and explained with the utmost care, with reference to published sources.
See [[Misuse of statistics]], [[Opinion poll]], and [[Statistical survey]] for common errors and abuses.
=== Law ===
First of all, remember there are several legal traditions and that laws are only valid in their own jurisdiction. The opinion of local experts is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators, due to variances across areas of jurisdiction.
When discussing legal texts, it is in general better to quote from the text, or quote from reputable jurists, than to quote from newspaper reports, although newspaper reports in good newspapers are acceptable too. The journalist who wrote the paper may not be trained as a lawyer, although s/he may have access to a wider variety of legal experts than many lawyers do, so judge the quality of the report according to how well that journalist, or that newspaper, has covered legal issues in the past.
=== Popular culture and fiction ===
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. (See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_culture|Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone]].)
== See also ==
* Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Sources
* Wikipedia:Cite sources, style guide
* Wikipedia:Check your facts, style guide
* Wikipedia:Common knowledge, guideline
* Wikipedia:Independent sources, essay
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
* Template:Unreliable
-->
== Lihat pula ==
* [[Wikipedia:Sudut pandang netral]]
* [[Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli]]
* [[Wikipedia:Pemastian]]
* [[Wikipedia:Mengutip sumber]]
== Rujukan ==
{{reflist}}
== Pranala luar ==
* {{en}} [http://academic.bowdoin.edu/WritingGuides/primaries.htm How to Read a Primary Source], ''Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students'', Patrick Rael, 2004.
* {{en}} [http://academic.bowdoin.edu/WritingGuides/secondary.htm How to Read a Secondary Source], ''Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students'', Patrick Rael, 2004.
{{Kebijakan dan pedoman Wikipedia}}
{{wikipedia-stub}}
[[fr:Wikipédia:Citez vos sources#Qualité des sources]]
| 