ৱিকিপিডিয়া:ৱিকিপিডিয়া কি নহয়: বিভিন্ন সংশোধনসমূহৰ মাজৰ পাৰ্থক্য

সম্পাদনা সাৰংশ নাই
No edit summary
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
 
# '''Instruction manuals.''' While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an [[WP:WIAA|article]] should not read like a "how-to" style [[owners manual]], [[advice column]] ([[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer|legal]], [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|medical]] or otherwise) or [[suggestion box]]. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.<ref>The how-to restriction does not apply to the [[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project namespace]], where [[:Category:Wikipedia how-to|"how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself]] are appropriate, such as [[Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia]]. Also, in the [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Mainমূল namespaceনামস্থান|mainমূল namespaceনামস্থান]], describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the [[imperative mood]] about how to use something is not.</ref> If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at [[wikiHow]], [http://how-to.wikia.com/wiki/How_To How to Wiki] or our sister project, [[Wikibooks]].
# '''Travel guides.''' An article on [[Paris]] should mention landmarks, such as the [[Eiffel Tower]] and the [[Louvre]], but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a ''café au lait'' on the [[Champs-Élysées]]. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at [[Wikitravel]] or [http://travel.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_Travel Wikia travel] instead.
# '''Video game guides.''' An article about a [[computer game]] or [[video game]] should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See [[WP:VGSCOPE]].
# '''Scientific journals and research papers.''' A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the [[WP:LEAD|lead]] and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While [[WP:LINK|wikilinks]] should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
# '''Academic language.''' Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)|common usage]], not academic terminology, whenever possible.
# '''Case studies.''' Many topics are based on the relationship of ''factor X'' to ''factor Y'', resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to ''situation X'' in ''location Y'', or ''version X'' of ''item Y''. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "[[Slate industry in Wales]]" and "[[Island Fox]]" are fitting examples. Writing about "'''Oak trees in North Carolina'''" or a "'''Blue truck'''", however, would likely constitute a [[WP:POVFORK|POV fork]] or [[WP:OR|originalমৌলিক researchগৱেষণা]], and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.
 
==={{anchor|CBALL|CRYSTAL|CRYSTALBALL}}ৱিকিপিডিয়া ভৱিষ্যতবাণী কৰা জাদুৰ বল নহয়===
{{policy shortcut|WP:BALL|WP:CBALL|WP:CRYSTAL|WP:FUTURE|WP:NOTCRYSTAL|WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL|WP:SPECULATION}}
 
Wikipedia is not a collection of [[wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Verifiabilityবিশ্বাসযোগ্যতা|unverifiableঅপ্ৰমাণিত]] speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It ''is'' appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is ''not'' appropriate for editors to insert [[WPৱিকিপিডিয়া:NOR|theirমৌলিক ownগৱেষণাৰহিত opinionsলেখা|নিজা orমতামত আৰু analysesবিশ্লেষণ]]. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating [[WP:UNDUE|undue bias]] to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid [[Wikipedia:Spam|advertising]] and unverified claims (for films, see [[WP:NFF]]). In particular:
 
# Individual '''scheduled or expected future events''' should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are '''not definite''' until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the [[United States presidential election, 2012|2012 U.S. presidential election]] and [[2020 Summer Olympics]]. By comparison, the [[United States presidential election, 2020|2020 U.S. presidential election]] and [[2036 Summer Olympics]] are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, [[ultimate fate of the universe]] is an acceptable topic.
 
# '''Journalism.'''{{anchor|JOURNALISM}} Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]]. However, our sister projects [[Wikisource]] and [[Wikinews]] do exactly that, and ''are'' intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many ''encyclopedia articles'' on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently [[WP:V|verified]] information.
# '''News reports.'''{{anchor|NEWS}} Wikipedia considers the enduring [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Notabilityউল্লেখযোগ্যতা|notabilityউল্লেখযোগ্যতা]] of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project [[n:Main page|Wikinews]]. See also: [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Notabilityউল্লেখযোগ্যতা (eventsপৰিঘটনা)]]
# '''Who's who.''' {{anchor|NOTWHOSWHO}} Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, [[WP:DUE|in proportion]] to their importance to the overall topic. (See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] for more details.)
 
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Notability}}
 
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even [[WP:V|verifiableবিশ্বাসযোগ্য]], does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
 
# '''Summary-only description of works.''' Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Manualৰচনাশৈলীৰ of Styleহাতপুথি (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries]]. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.
# '''Lyrics databases.''' Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright, and any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of the style. For songs in the public domain the article should not consist solely of the lyrics ([[Wikisource]] should be used for such articles instead), but should instead provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from an out-of-copyright song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on [[Wikisource]] and linked to from the article. ''Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to distribute the work.'' See [[Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources]] for full discussion.
# '''Excessive listing of statistics.''' Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. [[Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008]]), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
 
Since anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed.
Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a [[shock site]], or clear [[wp:vandalism|vandalism]]) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Biographiesজীৱিত ofব্যক্তিৰ living personsজীৱনী|biographies ofজীৱিত livingব্যক্তিৰ personsজীৱনী]] policy, or that violates other [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:policiesনীতি andআৰু guidelinesপথনিৰ্দেশিকাসমূহ|Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া policiesনীতিসমূহ]] (especially [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Neutralনিৰপেক্ষ point of viewদৃষ্টিভংগী|neutral point ofনিৰপেক্ষ viewদৃষ্টিভংগী]]) or the laws of the [[U.S. state]] of [[Florida]] where Wikipedia's main [[server (computing)|servers]] are hosted, will also be removed.
 
However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.
Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.
 
=={{anchor|COMM|COMMUNITY}}ৱিকিপিডিয়া সমাজসম্প্ৰদায়==
The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following policies apply to Wikipedia's governance and processes.
 
{{policy shortcut|WP:DEMOCRACY|WP:NOT#DEM|WP:NOTDEMOCRACY}}
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion}}
Wikipedia is <span class="plainlinks">[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018735.html not an experiment in democracy]</span> or any other [[political system]]. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining [[wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Consensusঐকমত্য|consensusঐকমত্য]] is through [[WP:EP|editing]] and [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|discussion]], ''not'' [[m:don't vote on everything|voting]]. Although editors occasionally use [[Wikipedia:Straw polls|straw polls]] in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion.
 
Straw votes should be used with caution, and are no more [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Consensusঐকমত্য#Consensus can change|binding]] than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].
 
==={{anchor|BUREAUCRACY}}ৱিকিপিডিয়া কোনো আমোলাতন্ত্ৰ নহয়===
While Wikipedia has many elements of a [[bureaucracy]],<ref name="Jr.Lessig2010">{{cite book|author1=Joseph Michael Reagle, Jr.|author2=Lawrence Lessig|title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ml7SlTq8XvIC&pg=PA90|accessdate=30 June 2011|date=30 September 2010|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=9780262014472|pages=90-91}}</ref> it is not governed by statute: it is not a [[moot court]], and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When [[Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep|instruction creep]] is found to have occurred, it should be removed.
 
While Wikipedia's written [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Policiesনীতি andআৰু guidelinesপথনিৰ্দেশিকাসমূহ|policiesনীতি andআৰু guidelinesপথনিৰ্দেশিকাসমূহ]] should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the ''letter'' of policy without consideration for the ''principles'' of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Ignoreসকলো allবিধি rulesউপেক্ষা কৰক|ignoreসেইবোৰ উপেক্ষা themকৰক]]. Disagreements are resolved through [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Consensusঐকমত্য|consensusঐকমত্য-basedভিত্তিক]] discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves [[WP:PGLIFE|may be changed]] to reflect [[WP:CCC|evolving consensus]].
 
A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|do not make changes to content or policies just to prove a point]] to someone with whom you disagree.
 
Every user is expected to interact with others [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Civilityশিষ্টাচাৰ|civillyশিষ্টাচাৰ]], calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Noব্যক্তিগত personalআক্ৰমণ attacksনকৰিব|insult]], harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Disputeমতবিৰোধ resolutionসমাধান|disputeমতবিৰোধ resolutionসমাধান]] process. There are always users willing to [[WP:RFM|mediate]] and [[WP:RFAr|arbitrate]] disputes between others.
 
In [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Disputeমতবিৰোধ resolutionসমাধান|large disputes]], resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. [[WPৱিকিপিডিয়া:AGFভাল ভাৱ ৰাখক|Assumeভাল goodভাৱ faithৰাখক]] that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not [[WP:CANVASSING|organize a faction]] with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia’s fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a [[WPৱিকিপিডিয়া:CONSENSUSঐকমত্য|consensusঐকমত্য]]. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
 
Do not use Wikipedia to make [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Noআইনী legalভাবুকি threatsএৰাই চলক|legalআইনী]] or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems.<ref>If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate [[meta:Mailing list|mailing list]], contact the [http://wikimediafoundation.org Wikimedia Foundation], or in cases of [[Wikipediaৱিকিপিডিয়া:Copyrightsস্বত্বাধিকাৰ|copyrightস্বত্বাধিকাৰ]] violations notify us at [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright]].
</ref> Threats are not tolerated and may result in a [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|ban]].