Wikipedia:Memetik sumber

Setiap petikan atau maklumat yang mungkin dipersoalkan perlu mempunyai sumber petikan. Sekiranya dipersoalkan, dan tiada sumber dapat diberikan, maklumat tersebut boleh dikeluarkan dari rencana.

Petikan sumber memenuhi beberapa matlamat:

• Memastikan kandungan rencana boleh dipercayai dan boleh disahkan oleh semua pembaca dan penyelia.
• Untuk mempertingkatkan kebolehpercayaan umum dan ciri-ciri boleh dipercayai Wikipedia.
• Untuk membuktikan bahawa suntingan anda bukannya penyelidikan asal.
• Mengurangkan kemungkinannya timbul pertikaian sidang pengarang, atau menyelesaikan mana-mana pertikaian yang timbul.
• Untuk memberi penghargaan kepada sumber bagi memberikan maklumat berguna dan mengelakkan dakwaan plagiarism.
• Untuk memberikan lebih maklumat untuk rujukan lanjut.

Bila menyebut sumber

Artikel-artikel Wikipedia tidak harus menggunakan artikel-artikel Wikimedia lain sebagai sumber. Wikilinks bukan satu penggantian bagi sumber.

Bila untuk menambahkan kandungan

Jika anda menambah sebarang maklumat kepada satu artikel, terutama jika ianya mempunyai niat atau ianya nampak seperti boleh dipertikaikan, anda seharusnya memberikan satu petikan sumber. Jika anda tidak tahu bagaimana hendak memformat suatu petikan, orang lain akan membetulkannya untuk anda. Hanya berikan sebarang maklumat mengenai sumber berkenaan.

Secara umumnya, walaupun anda sedang menulis daripada ingatan anda, anda seharusnya mencari secara aktif sebarang rujukan berautoriti kepada petikan berkenaan. Sekiranya anda sedang menulis daripada pengetahuan anda, maka anda seharusnya cukup berpengetahuan untuk mengenalpasti satu rujukan yang baik di mana pembaca boleh berunding mengenai perkara tersebut— anda tidak akan berada di sini selama-lamanya untuk menjawab sebarang persoalan. Fakta penting adalah untuk menolong pembaca dan penyunting lain.

Keperluan untuk petikan sememangnya sangat penting apabila menulis mengenai pendapat-pendapat yang digunakan untuk sesuatu isu. Avoid weasel words seperti, "Beberapa orang berkata…" Sebaliknya, buatkan tulisan anda verifiable: cari orang tertentu atau kumpulan tertentu yang berpegang kepada pendapat berkenaan, sebut mereka dengan nama, dan berikan satu petikan kepada beberapa tempat yang mereka boleh dilihar atau didengari memberikan pendapat berkenaan. Ingat bahawa Wikipedia bukanlah satu tempat untuk memberikan pandangan anda atau untuk penyelidikan asli.

Oleh keranan ini merupakan Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, sumber-sumber Bahasa Melayu seharusnya diberikan bila mana ianya boleh didapati, dan seharusnya ia selalu digunakan di dalam kecenderungan kepada sumber-sumber asing yang mempunyai kaliber yang seimbang Bagaimanapun, sila berikan rujukan-rujukan bahasa-bahasa asing yang mana ianya benar. Sekiranya memetik sumber daripada sumber-sumber asing, satu terjemahan bahasa Melayu seharusnya diberi bersama-sama dengan petikan bahasa asal. Dengan memetik satu terjemahan bahasa Melayu, bahasa asing yang asal mesti diberi kerana apa-apa kesalahan yang mungkin berlaku semasa penterjemahan bermakna petikan asli seharusnya digunakan untuk verifikasi.

Bila untuk mengesahkan kandungan

Anda boleh tambah sumber-sumber walaupun bahan-bahan yang anda tidak tulis sekiranya anda menggunakan satu sumber untuk verify bahan tersebut. Dengan menambah petikan-petikan kepada satu artikel adalah merupakan cara terbaik untuk menyumbang kepada Wikipedia. Sila lihat Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards dan Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check untuk menguruskan usaha-usaha seperti ini.

Sewaktu terdapat pertikaian fakta

Suntingan-suntingan yang bercanggah boleh dibuang serta-merta, dibuang dan diletakkan di dalam laman perbualan untuk perbincangan, atau dimana suntingan itu tidak membahayakan tetapi anda mempertikaikannya dab berasakan bahawa ia memerlukan satu petikan sumber, anda boleh letakkan {{citation needed}} selepas perenggan yang relevan. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many of instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial.

Sewaktu tiada pertikaian fakta

Fikir dulu: Cuba untuk bayangkan apa yang orang lain mungkin syak apa yang kamu tulis atau memerlukan maklumat lanjut. Dengan menyokong apa yang ditulis di dalam Wikipedia adalah dengan merujuk kepada sumber yang boleh dipercayai dan jelas akan menambah kepada kestabilan didalam sumbangan anda.

Bagaimana menyebut sumber

For an easy-follow guide, see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style

If you are the first to add references to an article, try to follow conventions generally accepted in the field of knowledge described in the article. Some of these might follow from formats proposed by WikiProjects.

If nothing in particular appears applicable, or if you don't know which style would work best:

• The examples given in Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style might be helpful.
• Consider using the templates provided by Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources.

• Further assistance may be derived from WikiBib, a simple bibliography maker written in Javascript that has most of these templates built in.

The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system.

Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below.

Remember though: the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.

There are several ways of accomplishing this.

• When writing a new article or adding references to an existing article that has none, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning (if available and unquestioned).
• An article's previous content contributors usually know the established practice - if possible, follow their lead if the article already has references.
• If the established practice is unavailable or disputed, contributors should decide on a style that they believe strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the readability of the text and making citations as precise and accessible as possible.
• If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.
• If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor.

If you are unclear as to which system or style to use, remember: the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source. If necessary, put this information in the talk page, or in a comment on the main page, and ask others how to format it correctly for that article.

Gaya untuk sebutan sumber

The following are different methods that you can use to insert references in Wikipedia articles.

The three most popular styles of in-text citations are Harvard style, footnotes, and embedded HTML links.

Note that no matter which inline-citation style is used, all the sources used in an article should be listed at the end in a references section.

Pautan HTML terbenam

The MediaWiki software supports embedding HTML links directly into an article by enclosing a URL with single square brackets — [http://www.google.com] — which appears like this: [1] A full citation must then be given in the References section like this:

*[http://google.com Google's website], which appears as:

• Google's website

A newspaper article referenced in an article by using an embedded link might be — [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html] — which looks like this. [2] The embedded link is placed after the period, or when placed within a sentence after a clause, then after the comma.

Then in the References section, a full citation is provided:

*[http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"] by John Plunkett, The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005

which appears as:

• "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying" by John Plunkett, The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005

It is particularly important in the case of online newspaper articles to include byline, headline, newspaper, and date of publication, because many newspapers keep stories online only for a certain period before transferring them to the archives. With a full citation, readers will be able to find the article easily even if the link doesn't work.

It's also important to provide and place in quotation marks the headline of the article, or title if it's a scholarly paper, so that Wikipedia is attributing a description of the article's contents to a source, and not describing it ourselves. For example, it isn't Wikipedia's claim that Sorrell is accusing Murdoch of panic buying, but the Guardian's, and we should precisely quote the Guardian's headline, and not replace it with "A story about Murdoch's panic buying".

An advantage of these embedded links is that it is easy for an online reader and other editors to click on the link and jump immediately to the cited article (if still working). In principle, this makes checking sources very easy. Another advantage of these embedded links is that they are easy to create and maintain.

There are disadvantages with such embedded links, however. First, there is question of how much such checking and maintenance takes place: anyone who takes a random sample of these will find dead embedded links. Also, such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material, which is why it is particularly important to include a full citation in the References section.

Perujukan Harvard

Maklumat lanjut : Wikipedia:Harvard referencing

The Harvard referencing system places a partial citation — the author's name and year of publication within parentheses — in the text itself, and a complete citation at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References". According to The Oxford Style Manual, the Harvard system is the "most commonly used reference method in the physical and social sciences" (Ritter 2002).

• For one author, add the author's surname and the year of publication in parentheses (round brackets) after the sentence or paragraph, and before the period: for example (Smith 2005).
• For two authors, use (Smith & Jones 2005); for more authors, use (Smith et al. 2005).
• If the "References" section contains two or more works by the same author but published the same year, use a letter after the year to distinguish the different sources (for example, (Smith 2005a) and (Smith 2005b). Make sure that the in-text citations use the correct letters that correspond to the full citation in the "References" at the end of the article.

• If the date of publication is unavailable, use "n.d." (meaning, no date)
• Many times authors use an edition of a book that was published long after the original publication. In such cases, many people put the original date of publication in square brackets followed by the date of publication of the edition used by the author who is making the citation. For example, a citation might be

(Marx [1867] 1967)

and the complete reference would be:

Marx, Karl [1867] 1967 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy