„Hjálp:Námskeið/Nokkur mikilvæg atriði“: Munur á milli breytinga
flutt af ensku |
þýðing |
||
| Lína 2: | Lína 2: | ||
<div style="border:2px solid #A3B1BF; padding:.5em 1em 1em 1em; border-top:none; background-color:#fff; color:#000"> |
<div style="border:2px solid #A3B1BF; padding:.5em 1em 1em 1em; border-top:none; background-color:#fff; color:#000"> |
||
{{EYhægri}} |
{{EYhægri}} |
||
There are some things to '''keep in mind''' when editing Wikipedia. |
|||
Það eru '''nokkur mikilvæg atriði''' sem gott er að hafa í huga þegar unnið er í Wikipediu. |
|||
==Core content policies== |
|||
===Neutral point of view=== |
|||
Maintaining a '''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]''' (NPOV) is one of the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars]] and [[meta:Founding principles|founding principles]] of Wikipedia. This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive. Our policy does NOT mean that our articles are expected to be 100% "[[wiktionary:objective|objective]]," since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true." |
|||
==Meginreglurnar um efnistök== |
|||
Wikipedia does not achieve balance by giving all opposing points of view equal space or treating them as equally valid. Views should be represented in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. When the subject of the article is a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe theory]], such as [[HIV/AIDS denialism]] or [[Allah as Moon-god]], the article should give much more weight to the mainstream view with the fringe view clearly described as such. |
|||
===Hlutleysisreglan=== |
|||
Reglan um '''[[Wikipedia:Hlutleysisreglan|hlutlaust sjónarhorn]]''' er ein af [[Wikipedia:Meginstoðir Wikipediu|fimm meginstoðum Wikipediu]] og er á meðal [[meta:Founding principles|stofnlögmála]] hennar. samkvæmt reglunni ætti umfjöllun á Wikipediu að viðurkenna allar markverðar skoðanir á málefninu. Í staðinn fyrir lýsa því aðeins frá einu sjónarhorni þá ætti grein á Wikipediu að fjalla um allar viðteknar skoðanir á málinu án fordóma. Markmið okkar er að vera upplýsandi frekar en sannfærandi um eina skoðun umfram aðra. Reglan þýðir ekki að greinar okkar þurfi að vera 100% hlutlægar þar sem að í flestum deilumálum er það svo að allir deiluaðilar telja sig hafa rétt fyrir sér. |
|||
Hlutleysisreglan þýðir ekki að allar skoðanir séu jafngildar eða verðskuldi jafn mikið pláss í umfjöllun greina Wikipediu. Innbyrðis hlutföll umfjöllunar um ólíkar skoðanir ættu að taka mið af vægi þeirra í áreiðanlegum heimildum. Þegar umfjöllunarefnið er umdeild jaðarskoðun á borð við helfararafneitun eða efasemdir um gagnsemi bólusetninga þá ætti umfjöllun að vera skýr með það hver skoðun meginþorra sérfræðinga sé og lýsa jaðarskoðunum sem slíkum. |
|||
It is okay to state opinions in articles, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it is a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example "Supporters of this say that..." or "Notable commentator X believes that..." |
|||
Það er í lagi að lýsa skoðunum í greinum, svo lengi sem þær eru kynntar þannig en ekki sem staðreyndir. Sömuleiðis þarf að koma fram hver hefur lýst umræddri skoðun og vísa þar vandlega til heimilda. |
|||
You might hear Wikipedians referring to an article as having a "POV" problem. This is Wikipedia slang for a biased article, or one obviously written from a single perspective. Advertising copy would fall in this category, as would a political [[wikt:diatribe|diatribe]]. In a less extreme case, an article might have "POV" problems if it spends significantly more time discussing one view than another view of equivalent significance, even if each view is presented neutrally, or if the article gives excessive coverage to a minor viewpoint. |
|||
Vandamál tengd hlutleysisreglunni eru nokkuð algeng á Wikipediu þar sem hinir ýmsu aðilar geta haft hagsmuni af því að breyta umfjöllun um sig og hagsmunamál sín. Slík vandamál geta verið augljós í tilfelli auglýsingaskrums eða pólitískrar einræðu en málið gæti líka verið lúmskara og falist í ójafnvægi í umfjölluninni þar sem fjallað er um minni háttar atriði í löngu máli. Jafnvel þó að umfjöllunin sem slík sé hlutlaus þá getur slíkt ójafnvægi talist stríða gegn hlutleysisreglunni. |
|||
If you are going to spend time on controversial articles in subjects like religion or politics, it is important that you read the neutral point of view policy page as soon as possible. You should probably also read the essay [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|Staying cool when the editing gets hot]]. If you are going to spend your time on less emotional topics such as math, or video games, you should still read the policies, but it is a less pressing concern. Keep in mind the advice here, and read the full policy if an NPOV issue comes up. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Ef þú ætlar þér að einbeita þér að breytingum á umdeildum umfjöllunarefnum á borð við stjórnmál og trúarbrögð þá ættir þú að kynna þér hlutleysisregluna í þaula. Þú ættir líka að vera við því búin(n) að [[Wikipedia:Deilumál|upp geti komið deilur]] við aðra notendur um áherslur. Þá er mikilvægt að halda stillingu og taka ágreininginn ekki inn á sig. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
===Verifiability=== |
===Verifiability=== |
||
Útgáfa síðunnar 10. desember 2012 kl. 17:14
| Inngangur | Breytingar | Textavinnsla | Tenglar | Heimildaskráning | Spjallsíður | Nokkur mikilvæg atriði | Skráning | Lokaorð |
Það eru nokkur mikilvæg atriði sem gott er að hafa í huga þegar unnið er í Wikipediu.
Meginreglurnar um efnistök
Hlutleysisreglan
Reglan um hlutlaust sjónarhorn er ein af fimm meginstoðum Wikipediu og er á meðal stofnlögmála hennar. samkvæmt reglunni ætti umfjöllun á Wikipediu að viðurkenna allar markverðar skoðanir á málefninu. Í staðinn fyrir lýsa því aðeins frá einu sjónarhorni þá ætti grein á Wikipediu að fjalla um allar viðteknar skoðanir á málinu án fordóma. Markmið okkar er að vera upplýsandi frekar en sannfærandi um eina skoðun umfram aðra. Reglan þýðir ekki að greinar okkar þurfi að vera 100% hlutlægar þar sem að í flestum deilumálum er það svo að allir deiluaðilar telja sig hafa rétt fyrir sér.
Hlutleysisreglan þýðir ekki að allar skoðanir séu jafngildar eða verðskuldi jafn mikið pláss í umfjöllun greina Wikipediu. Innbyrðis hlutföll umfjöllunar um ólíkar skoðanir ættu að taka mið af vægi þeirra í áreiðanlegum heimildum. Þegar umfjöllunarefnið er umdeild jaðarskoðun á borð við helfararafneitun eða efasemdir um gagnsemi bólusetninga þá ætti umfjöllun að vera skýr með það hver skoðun meginþorra sérfræðinga sé og lýsa jaðarskoðunum sem slíkum.
Það er í lagi að lýsa skoðunum í greinum, svo lengi sem þær eru kynntar þannig en ekki sem staðreyndir. Sömuleiðis þarf að koma fram hver hefur lýst umræddri skoðun og vísa þar vandlega til heimilda.
Vandamál tengd hlutleysisreglunni eru nokkuð algeng á Wikipediu þar sem hinir ýmsu aðilar geta haft hagsmuni af því að breyta umfjöllun um sig og hagsmunamál sín. Slík vandamál geta verið augljós í tilfelli auglýsingaskrums eða pólitískrar einræðu en málið gæti líka verið lúmskara og falist í ójafnvægi í umfjölluninni þar sem fjallað er um minni háttar atriði í löngu máli. Jafnvel þó að umfjöllunin sem slík sé hlutlaus þá getur slíkt ójafnvægi talist stríða gegn hlutleysisreglunni.
Ef þú ætlar þér að einbeita þér að breytingum á umdeildum umfjöllunarefnum á borð við stjórnmál og trúarbrögð þá ættir þú að kynna þér hlutleysisregluna í þaula. Þú ættir líka að vera við því búin(n) að upp geti komið deilur við aðra notendur um áherslur. Þá er mikilvægt að halda stillingu og taka ágreininginn ekki inn á sig.
Verifiability
Wikipedia requires verifiable content, which means that you may only write what reliable sources have said about topics. If you cannot find reliable sources to back up your information, it cannot be included even if it is "true". You must cite sources for any information you contribute that is controversial or likely to be challenged, preferably by adding a footnote, as discussed in the "Citing Sources" page of this tutorial. Citations help our readers verify what you have written and find more information.
"Paris is the capital of France" is an example of a statement that does not necessarily need to be sourced, because it's common knowledge and everybody knows that there are dozens of sources which could be cited. The information is attributable, even if it is not attributed.
If any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section. Books of particular interest should be listed in a "Further reading" section, but only if they were not used as sources for the article.
No original research
Wikipedia is not the place for original research — that is, facts, allegations, or ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Sources must support material directly and in context. For example, the statement "most computer scientists believe that P ≠ NP" must be supported by a reliable source which says that most computer scientists believe this, not by five citations of computer scientists saying that they themselves believe this without claiming to speak for the majority.
Routine calculations, translations from other languages, and faithful transcriptions of published audio and video are generally not considered original research.
Other editorial policies
Subject matter
Wikipedia is an editable encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac). Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects. What exactly constitutes notability is the subject of constant debate on Wikipedia, but in no case should there be (per Wikipedia rules) an article for every person on the planet, or for every company that sells anything, or for each street in every town in the world. However, there are sister projects for certain types of non-encyclopedic content.
Encyclopedia articles are primarily about the subject, not the words for the subject, so any article that simply defines and explains the usages of a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project instead.
Original source text, such as from a public-domain book that you want to post to make it more accessible, should be contributed to one of Wikipedia's other sister projects, Wikisource.
Snið:Wikipedia's sister projects For a list of all related projects, see the Complete list of Wikimedia projects.
We also tend to discourage authors from writing about themselves or their own accomplishments, as this is a conflict of interest. If you have notable accomplishments, someone else will write an article about you (eventually). Wikipedia:Autobiography has more detail on this.
Copyrights
Do not add copyrighted materials to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright owner. When adding information to articles, make sure it is written in your own words. Remember that all information found on the Internet is copyrighted unless the website specifically states otherwise.
English dialects
All common forms of words are welcome on Wikipedia. An abridged version of the policy here could be stated as:
- 1. Do not edit a page simply to "correct" a spelling that is correct in another language.
- 2. If the subject of an article is related to the U.S., then U.S. English is preferred:
- 3. If the subject is related to an organization using British English (UK, Commonwealth, Ireland, UN, etc.) then British English is preferred.:
- 4. If the subject is not a regional one ("astronomy," for example), the original contributor's usage should be followed. See American and British English differences if you have difficulty with this.
- 5. The usage should be consistent throughout an article, unless it mentions both US- and Britain/Commonwealth-related topics. In that case, Policies 2 and 3 prevail.
- 6. When you create a new article, generally the most commonly used title is preferred. A simple way of testing this is to try a Search engine test on one of the common search engines, and see what generates more results.
Conduct
Wikipedia encourages an atmosphere of friendliness and openness. Of course, in practice there are sometimes disagreements and even an occasional heated argument, but members of the community are expected to behave in a generally civil manner.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that you should always assume good faith on the part of other editors. Do not assume that someone is acting out of spite or malice. If someone does something that upsets you, leave a polite message on the relevant article's talk page or on the user's talk page, and ask why. You may find that you have avoided a misunderstanding and saved yourself some embarrassment.
Creating articles
When creating articles on Wikipedia, try to take the advice given in the tutorial and to follow the policies mentioned here, such as neutrality. It is important to cite sources to establish the notability of the topic and make the article verifiable. You need to be registered to directly create an article in the encyclopedia, but if you are not, you can still use the articles for creation process.
Renaming articles
If you find an article that you believe is mis-named, please do not copy and paste the contents of the old article into a new article — among other things, it separates the previous contributions from their edit history (which we need to keep track of for copyright reasons). The preferred method is to move the page to the new name, you need to be registered for that. If it is your first move, please read the warnings on the move page carefully, as there are a number of issues to consider before moving a page. If a "disambiguation" page is involved, it is best to review Wikipedia:Disambiguation.