Wikipedia:Pengetahuan umum: Perbedaan antara revisi

Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan

Sebaris

Revisi terkini sejak 6 Maret 2019 13.57

Halaman ini merupakan pedoman di Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia.

Isinya telah diterima luas oleh para pengguna dan dianggap sebagai standar yang harus diikuti oleh semua pengguna, meskipun sebaiknya dipahami dengan akal sehat, dan pengecualian dapat berlaku sewaktu-waktu. Segala penyuntingan substansial yang dilakukan di halaman ini harus menggambarkan konsensus. Jika Anda ragu, diskusikan terlebih dahulu di halaman pembicaraan.

Suatu pembenaran yang sering digunakan dalam percakapan santai adalah bahwa suatu fakta merupakan suatu "pengetahuan umum". Sering ditemukan bahwa ternyata kebanyakan orang sebenarnya tidak sama-sama mengetahui ini. Bahkan suatu pernyataan yang secara luas dipercayai kebenarannya, sebenarnya tidak semuanya benar atau bahkan sama sekali berlawanan dengan kenyataannya.

Para kontributor Wikipedia didorong untuk menemukan sumber tepercaya untuk mendukung suntingan mereka dan mengutip sumber tersebut. Mengutip sumber jika suntingan Anda dipertanyakan oleh kontributor lain adalah kebijakan Wikipedia, dan semua suntingan tanpa sumber dapat saja dihapus. Untuk informasi lebih lanjut lihat Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli dan Wikipedia:Pemastian.

Ada beberapa pernyataan yang dapat diterima oleh kebanyakan Wikiwan untuk dilaporkan sebagai fakta tanpa memberikan kutipan dari sumber luar. Pedoman ini mencoba mendefinisikan kapan sebaiknya hal tersebut dihindari.

Artikel bertopik Wikipedia ini adalah sebuah rintisan. Anda dapat membantu Wikipedia dengan mengembangkannya.

@@ Baris 1: / Baris 1: @@
 {{pedoman}}
-{{terjemah|Inggris}}
 Suatu pembenaran yang sering digunakan dalam percakapan santai adalah bahwa suatu fakta merupakan suatu "'''pengetahuan umum'''". Sering ditemukan bahwa ternyata kebanyakan orang sebenarnya tidak sama-sama mengetahui ini. Bahkan suatu pernyataan yang secara luas dipercayai kebenarannya, sebenarnya tidak semuanya benar atau bahkan sama sekali berlawanan dengan kenyataannya.
-Para kontributor Wikipedia didorong untuk menemukan [[Wikipedia:sumber terpercaya|sumber terpercaya]] untuk mendukung suntingan mereka dan [[Wikipedia:mengutip sumber|mengutip sumber]] tersebut. Mengutip sumber jika suntingan Anda dipertanyakan oleh kontributor lain adalah kebijakan Wikipedia, dan semua suntingan tanpa sumber dapat saja dihapus. Untuk informasi lebih lanjut lihat [[Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli]] dan [[Wikipedia:Pemastian]].
+Para kontributor Wikipedia didorong untuk menemukan [[Wikipedia:sumber tepercaya|sumber tepercaya]] untuk mendukung suntingan mereka dan [[Wikipedia:mengutip sumber|mengutip sumber]] tersebut. Mengutip sumber jika suntingan Anda dipertanyakan oleh kontributor lain adalah kebijakan Wikipedia, dan semua suntingan tanpa sumber dapat saja dihapus. Untuk informasi lebih lanjut lihat [[Wikipedia:Bukan riset asli]] dan [[Wikipedia:Pemastian]].
 Ada beberapa pernyataan yang dapat diterima oleh kebanyakan Wikiwan untuk dilaporkan sebagai fakta tanpa memberikan kutipan dari sumber luar. Pedoman ini mencoba mendefinisikan kapan sebaiknya hal tersebut dihindari.
-<!--
-==When to seek professional help==
-Certain kinds of claims should most definitely '''not''' be left to common knowledge without citations.
-* Controversial claims.
-** Facts about which Wikipedians themselves cannot form a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|rough consensus]].
-** Claims in areas of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy. This includes political and religious ideas.
-** For a sampling of controversial topics, see [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues]].
-* Untested facts or arguments
-** [[Wikipedia:No original research|Original research]] that presents reports based on your own experience, or your own ideas, theories, or arguments, even when these are based on established facts, are not allowed, according to Wikipedia policy.
-** Facts that cannot be confirmed by Wikipedians other than the original claimant.
-* Technical knowledge
-** Claims that something is a scientific fact. Acceptable scientific theories are published and peer reviewed.
-** Medical claims. There are many pitfalls, false leads, and confusing details and countervailing factors in medicine.  It's also very important to report only accurate information.  Even though Wikipedia readers are cautioned not to use the encyclopedia instead of a doctor, we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to someone because of an inaccuracy here.  There are plenty of written sources that are more authoritative than the average Wikipedian.
-** Claims that something is legal or illegal. Legislation, regulations, and [[case law]] are all published.  Also, just citing a law that seems to make a specific instance of something illegal is not always enough.  There may be other laws which override the cited law in the situation under consideration, and there are many details of the application of the law which complicate matters.  Also, what is illegal varies by jurisdiction (for example, there are few drugs that are illegal everywhere).
-** Anything where a PhD (or other advanced training) is required in the field to be able to evaluate truth and consistency with the consensus view; for example, [[black hole thermodynamics]].
-** Historical facts. An account by a professional historian, or if none is available, a contemporary written account.  In the latter case, such a primary source should be interpreted with caution.
-* Indirect knowledge.
-** [[Hearsay]].  If you heard or read something somewhere, you must be able to cite a reliable published or broadcast source. Don't play the [[Telephone (game)|telephone game]].
-** Anything the reporting Wikipedians don't have direct personal experience with.  Most of us don't have personal experience with space travel, or the atomic bombing of [[Hiroshima]].  But many of us have experienced popular music, know our local geography, and are familiar with the meanings of words within our local communities, although, as always, if your edit is challenged, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you must cite a reliable published source.
-** See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] for more information on these topics. Also see [[Wikipedia:No original research]], which is policy.
-==Should I believe what other editors say?==
-You should evaluate the testimony of Wikipedians as you would any other primary source. Keep in mind that it can be rude to simply tell someone "I don't believe you" or "I think you are lying" or "You are so biased; no one should believe anything you say."  Many people honestly hold mistaken opinions, and no one likes having their word questioned.  Many people also don't realize that the experiences of others are different from their own until other people share them, but are perfectly willing to be enlightened if it's done in a civil fashion.
-Obviously, the most diplomatic thing would be for someone to affirmatively say "I don't think that's true, and here's some evidence from outside sources or my own experience which don't seem to match up with what you wrote".
-If you are thinking "that sounds fishy", but don't have any evidence to support your skepticism, ''say so''. Many readers will have the same doubts. If you have a specific reason for doubt, definitely mention it. If not, you can simply ask some questions derived from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. "That sounds odd to me.  Can anyone else verify that?" or "If we took a poll of experts in the field, would they all agree with this?" or "Is there a published source we can cite for this?" or "Is there anyone who is not {a supporter of the cause, a member of the cult, etc.} who could confirm this or offer another perspective?"
-See [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]].
-==Has it always been that way?==
-Some facts may be so-called "common knowledge" today, but weren't known in the past or weren't obvious. It's a good idea for there to be some explanation of how these facts were discovered, how they have since been confirmed. For example, that the giant ball of fire in the sky is called the [[sun]] is an easily verified fact: all you have to do is check a [[dictionary]]. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is also a fact, but it's far from obvious from simple observation. A link to the history of this scientific discovery would be excellent documentation.
-It can be a good idea to explain how things came to be the way they are. The fact that the letter [A] is the first letter of the alphabet is an easily verified fact, which can be looked up in a dictionary. A link to a linguistic reference that explains the origins of the alphabet would be excellent documentation, although a link to confirmation from a dictionary would suffice.
-==Weasel words==
-When reporting claims and opinions, so-called "weasel words" tend to crop up, like "some believe", and "others claim", which should always be avoided. Replace the weasel words with names of people, institutions, or publications, and cite the source of your claim. See [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]].
--->
 {{wikipedia-stub}}
-[[en:Wikipedia:Common knowledge]]