විකිපීඩියා:සංගණ්‍යත්වය (වෙබ්)

මෙම පිටුව ඉංග්‍රීසි ව්‍යාපෘතියෙන් මෙහි ගෙනවිත් ඇත. අන්තර්ගතය අපගේ ව්‍යාපෘතිය සමඟ 100% නොගැලපෙනමුත් අපගේ අවශ්‍යතාවයන් වලට අනුකූලව ගොඩනගා ගැනීම සඳහා මූලික පියවර ලෙස භාවිතා කළ හැකිය.

මෙම පිටුව සිංහල විකිපීඩියාවෙහි සංගණ්‍යත්ව මාර්ගෝපදේශනය ලේඛනගත කරයි.
සාමාන්‍ය දැනීම අනුව ක්‍රියාකිරීම නිවැරැදි ක්‍රමවේදය විය හැකි වුවද, සහ විටින් විට ව්‍යතිරේකයන් අදාළ වූවද සංස්කාරකවරුන් විසින් මෙය පිළිපැදීමට වෙර දැරීම සාමාන්‍යයෙන් පිළිගන්නාවූ සම්මතය වෙයි. මෙම පිටුවට ඇතිකරන්නාවූ කිසියම් සත්තාවී සංස්කරණයන් සම්මුතිය ප්‍රදක්ෂිණා කරන අයුරින් විය යුතුයි. ඔබ කිසියම් දෙගිඩියාවකින් සිටියි නම්, පළමුව සාකච්ඡා පිටුවෙහි සාකච්ඡා කරන්න.

කෙටි මං

මෙම පිටුවේ අඩංගු කරුණු සැකෙවින්: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources.

From WP:NOT § INTERNET:

Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples.

This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.^[1]

Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.^[2]

Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted.

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deleting. Articles that may be non-notable can be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem. When such articles are being listed for deletion, the articles are discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Alternatively, the proposed deletion process may be used for articles that are uncontroversially deletion candidates, while the {{db-web}} template can be used to mark an article for speedy deletion; see criterion A7 for details.

Decisions based on verifiable evidence

ප්‍රධාන පිටුව: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence

In the dictionary, notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.

No inherent notability

කෙටි මග

WP:INHERENTWEB

"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If the content is not notable", below).

When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

No inherited notability

කෙටි මග

WP:INHERITWEB

Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not "inherit" notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person.

Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote.

Criteria

කෙටි මග

WP:WEBCRIT

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content^[3] may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations^[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site^[5] or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article.^[6]

These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website.

If the content is not notable

Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves.

However, information about such web content may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met. Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it:

has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article;
avoids self-promotion; and
includes information that can be verified through independent sources.

Web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article might be described in a relevant list of web content like the List of internet phenomena. Material about websites might be merged to articles about the organizations that own the websites. Appropriate redirects from the subject's name should be created to help readers find such information.

Notes

^ Content distributed primarily through the web which does not fall under this definition should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations).
^ Articles about websites or content which fail these guidelines but are related to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion.
^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
^
Examples:
- The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
- The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be by someone else who is writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that arise in material where the subject of the article itself is the source of material cited in the article.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.

[1] Content distributed primarily through the web which does not fall under this definition should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations).

[2] Articles about websites or content which fail these guidelines but are related to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion.

[3] Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

[4] Examples:
The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[5] The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

[6] The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[5] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be by someone else who is writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that arise in material where the subject of the article itself is the source of material cited in the article.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[6] Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.

[1]

Decisions based on verifiable evidence

No inherent notability

No inherited notability

Criteria

If the content is not notable

See also

Notes