Difference between revisions of "Βικιπαίδεια:Αμφισβήτηση ακρίβειας"

no edit summary
Εαν ένα άρθρο οδηγεί σε αυτή τη σελίδα ,αυτό οφείλεται στο γεγονός πως κάποιος αμφισβητεί την εγκυρότητα όσων περιέχει.Σε κάθε άρθρο του οποίου η ακρίβεια είναι υπο αμφισβήτηση υπάρχει μια ειδοποιήση.
If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate. Such articles have the following warning at the top: "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed: see [[talk:ARTICLENAME]]".
Η ακρίβεια ενος άρθρου μπορεί να αμφισβητηθεί εφ'όσον:
The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* Περιέχει αρκετές περίεργες πληροφορίες χωρίς να παρέχει πηγές
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
* Περιέχει πληροφορίες που είναι δύσκολο να τεκμηριωθούν.
* it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
* in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.?????
* Έχει γραφεί από χρήστη που έχει γράψει ανακρίβειες πάνω στο θέμα.
* it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
{{Page fixing tools}}
==Άρθρα των οποίων η ακρίβεια αμφισβητείται==
==Current disputes==
=== [[Haimirich]] ===
This article seems to mix two basic Germanic roots of which many names derived, <I> Haimirich </I> and <I> Amalric </I>. The latter isn't mentioned in the text, but quite some examples given of nowadays forms of Haimirich are either from Amalric (like <I> Emeric </I>) or their history is doubtful, i.e. could go both ways, could have a totally different root from the mentioned two or its history is very unclear. This problems arises because of the similarity of the two Germanic roots, not in their ancient form, but in the forms that appeared later, with the possibility of growing almost together. <I> Amerigo </I> is an example of a name that could be from both. It could either be a variant of the Italian name Enrico, which is from Haimirich, or from Amalric, through Imre, the Hungarian Saint. In other words, we need some expertise here sorting this out and change this article into something more accurate, distinguishing the two groups clearly and off course we have to create a new article, one about Amalric. 13:55 (GMT), 22 Dec 2004
=== [[2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities]] ===
This article seems to be a conclusion searching for evidence. Except for some very small stories in the mainstream press, this article takes data from unverifiable and dubious (partisan) sources, and attempts to expand the "controversy" into something much bigger than reality. Other editors have produced chartes and graphs based on this dubious data, which firmly goes against [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. All unverifiable and unreliable data or conclusions should be removed from this article and replaced with brief summaries of the concerns. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
=== [[Intelligent Design]] ===
This article's dissembling and soft pedalling of the subject would do a holocaust denier proud. It has a crowd of editors who clearly know nothing about ev-bio, and several who are clearly POV warriors. ID is as fringe as anything you care to name on wikipedia. If it can't be worked over in a credible manner, then wikipedia is nothing but an advertising conduit for any group with a large budget and many followers. [[User:Stirling Newberry|Stirling Newberry]] 03:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above objection does not relate to accuracy, but to NPOV. I venture that nearly every person will either come down very hard on one side of this issue or the other, or have little to no interest in it at all. Thus, a full-size, well-researched, unbiased survey of the topic is improbable. I find this article to be quite an achievement, giving full voice to both sides of the debate and even detailing specific instances of public figures whose positions are moderate or ambiguous. This effort to find a middle ground, however tenuous, is commendable. I believe a fair test of NPOV is whether I can detect where the writer's sympathies lie; in this article, I cannot.
[[User:Xiong|Xiong]] 23:49, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
=== [[Sneeze]] ===
The article seems presents a large number of facts with no references to back them up. Some facts are internally inconsistant (eg, the speed of a sneeze). Some parts have already been removed for being inaccurate and implausible. The whole article smacks of one of those 'did you know' e-mails that are regularly circulated around offices, and many of the statements therein seem dubious at best. The culture-related facts are not something I can't easily verify.
I'm sure there is some good material in the article, but it's difficult to tell what's truth and what's not. I'd love this to be reviewed by anyone with a more detailed knowledge of sneezing. --[[User:Pjf|PJF]] [[User_talk:Pjf|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Αμφισβητήσεις ακρίβειας|*]]