5000万用户数据泄露？脸书创始人发声道歉

百度 在一处消火栓箱旁，检查组随机抽取酒店员工对器材进行操作，该员工操作有些生疏。

?? ??????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???????????:????????????, ???????????:????? ???????? ????? ? ???????????:??? ????? ?????? ???-?? ???? ???????? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ???????????:???????? ????????????

??????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????????????? ??? ?? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ????; ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???????? ? ????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???,???? ??????? ???????? ???,?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??? ?? ???? ???, ????????????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????????????? ????? ?????????????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ??????????? ??????:??????????? ??? ??????

??????

???????? ???? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ???? ???? ????? ? ???????????, ??????-??????, ? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??????, ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????????? ???, ???? ?????????????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ??? ??? ???? ????????????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ????, ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????

‘????????’ ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ????????, ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????, ?????, ??? ???????? ????????????? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??????-??????? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ???, ??? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ? ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????? (?????, ????? ???????) ???? ??????????? ??????-??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????, ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??, ?? ???????? ????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????

????? ??????

??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ???? ????????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????????????, ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ????????????? ?? ?????????????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???, ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????, ?? ??????? ??????????? ????? ???????? ????????

????????? ??? ????????????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????, ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????

• ????? ????? ????? (??????, ??)
• ????? ??????? (????, ????????)
• ????? ??????? (????????????, ??? ???????????????? ?????)

?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????????????? ???????? ???? ????? ??????????? ??? ???? ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????, ???? ????? ????? ????????? ????????????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????????? ??????? ???? ????????????? ????? ?????

?????????? ??????

"????????" ?? "?????? ????????" ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?????; ??????, ????, ?????, ??? ????????????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????????, ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????, ??????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???, ????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????, ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ?????????, ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ?????

??????? ?????

???? ????? ????????????? ???????????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????, ???? ??????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????

??????????, ?? ???? ??? ???? ???????, ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ???????? ???, ??? ?????????? ??????????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??????????? ??? ??? ????; ?????????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ????

??????? ????

????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ????????, ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????, ???? ????????????????, ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ????????, ??????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??, ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????, ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ????? ??? ????

???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???, ???? ??????? ????? (?????? ??????? ????????????? ??? ??????? ??? ????), ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? (?????????? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ?????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????, ???? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????????? ????? ????)?

???????? ??????? ????????, ?????? ????????????? (????? ????????, ?????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????) ??????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????, ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ???, ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????, ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ????, ???? ??????????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????? ????

?? ???? ?????? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ????, ??? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ????? ???? ??????

????? ?????????

??? ?????? ???? ?????: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, ? Wikipedia:Verifiability § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

???????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????, ???????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????????, ?????? ????????, ??? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ???? ??????, ???? ?????????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????, ?????? ???????? ???? ?????????????, ?????????? ????????? ????? ????????, ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?-???????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ??? ???? ????, ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ??-???????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????

??????

• ???????? ??? ????? – ?????????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ???? ????, ???? ?????????? ??????, ???????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????????????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? (???????????:???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????????:???????? ??????????? ?????)?
• ??????????? ?????? – ???? ??????, ??, ???????? ?? ???????????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ???, ?????? ???????? ???????? ???????-?????????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????
• ????????? ???? ?????????????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?? ?????, ??? ?????? ???????????? ?????? (??????? ??????????????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ????), ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????, ???? ?????? ????????, ?????????, ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??????????? ???? ????? ????, ??????? ??????? ???????, ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???, ???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ????; ????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????????; ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ??? ???, ??? ?????? ????, ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????
• ??????? ???? – ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????-? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ?????????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??????????? ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ???????, ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????????, ???????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??? ????, ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???????????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ??? ?????
• ????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ???, ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ????????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????, ???? ???, ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???, ???? ????-????????, ???????????, ??? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???, ???? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?????
• ???? ????????? ??? ????????? ????????????? ????????? ????, ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
• In recent years there has been an explosion in new journals of very low quality that have only token peer-review if any (see predatory journals). They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index -- be weary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.
• Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. With regard to biomedical articles, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
• Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
• Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.
• One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

1. It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking;
2. When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable third-party source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

??? ?????: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources, ? Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

??????????? ??? ???-???????? ???

??? ????: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources

??????????? ???

??????????? ??????? ?'? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????, ???????? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????, ??? ????? ?????? ??????, ????? ?? ??? ???????, ???????? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ??????

??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??????????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????-????? ??? ????????? ???? ???????? ????????:?????? ????????? "" ???% ??????????? ?????? ???? ??????? "" " ??????" ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????, ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ???/???? ??????-??????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????

??????????? ??? (?????? ??? ???????)

??? ????: ???????????:???????????? § ??????????? ???

?? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???-???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ???-???????? ?? ??? ?????????, ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????? ??????, ????????, ??? ????????? ????? ?? ????????? ???-???????? ?????????

???????????-???????? ???????

?????????????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ???? ???????????-???????? '?????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????????-???????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ?????????, ????????? ????, ????? ????, ????????? ????? ????, ????????? ???? ??????? (????????), ???? ??? ??????? (???????? ????), ???????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ??, ???????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ??? ???????? ???????????????? ???? ?????????????? ??????,

???????? ???? ??????????? ??? ????

?????????????

???? ???????????????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ???????????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ????

???? ???? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? "????" ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).

???-???????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ???????? ??? ??? in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. ?? ????? ??????, ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ???????, ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? extraordinary claims. ???-???????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???, ????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????(see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources).

??? ?????: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

???-???????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ???

???-???????? ?? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????, ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ????????????, ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ????????? ???????? ???, ?????? ?? ?????????? ??????????? ???? ??? ???:

• ???????? ???? ???-??????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????
• ??? ?????? ?????? (???? ?????, ?????? ?? ???????? ?????) ???????? ???? ????? ????
• ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????
• ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ????
• ???????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????

?? ????????????????? Twitter, Tumblr ??? Facebook ?? ??? ??????? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ?????????

???????? ? ????????? ???

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

????? ???? ????????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ???-???????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???-???????? ?? ??? ?????????, ??????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??????, ????, ??? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???-???????? ???????? ??????? ???-???????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ???? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???, ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????????, ??????? ?????????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???????? ???-???????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??, ????? ???? ???? ????????, ???????? ??????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????

??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???-???????? ??? ??????????? ???????

???-???????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????, ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???, ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ??? ???:

1. ??????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ????
2. ??? ?????? ???? (???? ???????, ??????????, ?? ???????? ?????) ???????? ???? ???? ??????????? ????
3. ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????????? ???? ????????? ????
4. ???? ??????????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????? ????
5. ???????????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????

?? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ????? ????????, ???? ??????, ???????? ??? ??????? ???-??? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?????

????????? ???????? ?????????????

????? ???????? ?????

??? ????: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

??? ????: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE). Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

When editing articles and the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

??? ????: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Quotations

??? ?????? ???? ?????: MOS:QUOTE

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research).

Academic consensus

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Usage by other sources

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

Breaking news

??? ?????? ???? ?????: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops

??? ?????: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news

Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as distrusting anonymous sources, distrusting unconfirmed reports and those attributed to other news media, seeking multiple sources, seeking eyewitness reports, being wary of potential hoaxes, and being skeptical of reports of possible additional attackers in mass shootings.

Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS.

When editing articles covering current events, also keep in mind the essay on recentism bias.

{{current}}, {{recent death}}, or other current event-related templates may be added to the top of articles concerning breaking news, to alert readers that some information may be inaccurate, and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. Keep in mind, however, that these current event-related templates are not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

??? ?????

????????

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including

• {{notability}} – adds:
• {{fact}} or {{cn}} – adds:
• {{vc}} or {{rs}} – adds:

Policies and guidelines

• ???????????:??????????
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories
• ???????????:???? ????? ?????? ???

Essays

• Wikipedia:Articles on sources
• Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines
• Wikipedia:Cherrypicking
• Wikipedia:Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources questionable on reliability
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia clones
• Wikipedia:Common knowledge
• Wikipedia:How to mine a source
• Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context
• Wikipedia:Independent sources
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)
• Wikipedia:Offline sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable source examples
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws
• Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources
• Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources
• Wikipedia:Video links

Locating reliable sources

• Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources
• Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
• List of academic databases and search engines
• List of digital library projects
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Tools

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist provides a ref vetting method

Other

• Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources
• Wikipedia:News sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard—obtain community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-08-08/Dispatches—Signpost article
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• Change detection and notification
• Source criticism
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

??? ?????

• ???????????:???????????? ????????? ??????
• ???????????:??????????? ?? ???
• ???????????:?????????????
• ???????????:???????????
• ???????????:??? ????? ?????? ???
• ???????????:??? ????????? ?????? ???
• ???????????:????? ?????
• ???????????:??????
• ???????????:?????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????
• ???????????:??? ????????? ????
• ???????????:????? ???????? ?????
• ???????????:?????????? ?????
• ???????????:???????? ???????????
• ???????????:???????? ??????????? ???????????
• ???????????:???????? ? ???????????
• ???????????:????????????
• ???????????:??????????

?????????

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.