コンテンツにスキップ

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

利用者:Fromm/自主公表された情報源

Wikipedia‐ノート:検証可能性

※ご自由に編集してください


Self-published sources (online and paper)

[編集]

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.

自主公表された情報源(オンラインと紙媒体)

[編集]

ウェブサイトの開設や自費出版を行うことにより、誰でも自分自身がある分野のエキスパートと強弁することは可能です。 このため、自主公表された媒体(例えば、自費出版本、ニュースレター、個人的なウェブサイト、ウィキサイト、ブログ、インターネット掲示板、ツイッターなど)は、基本的には、出典として受け入れられません。

[1] (訳省略)

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.


Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

[編集]

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

自主公表された情報源並びに信頼性に乏しい(questionable)情報源に依拠する場合

[編集]

自主公表された情報源や信頼性に乏しい情報源は、特に記事内において彼ら自身に言及するための情報源として使用することができます。

ただし、使用に際しては、以下に列挙する項目を満たすことが必要です。

  1. 過度に身勝手(self-serving)な内容でないこと
  2. 第三者を非難(claims)する内容でないこと
  3. 記事の主題に直接関係しない出来事を非難する内容でないこと
  4. 信憑性に関し合理的疑いがないこと
  5. 記事の大半の内容が、このような自主公表された情報源や信頼性に乏しい情報源に依存していないこと

脚注

[編集]
  1. ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.