Wikipedia talk:求證得到

頁面內容唔支援其他語言。
出自維基百科，自由嘅百科全書

一粒果仁殼入面講曬呢版[編輯]

"一粒果仁殼入面"呢個講法其實好鬼佬，中文咁譯真係夾硬，可唔可以改地道啲？有乜意見？(我諗唔到住)- Hardys 2007年6月21號 (四) 02:40 (UTC)[回覆]

In a nutshell嘅意思係簡而言之。HenryLi 2007年6月21號 (四) 14:38 (UTC)[回覆]

查証得到[編輯]

"查証得到" 改做 "查得返"好唔好？- Hardys 2007年6月21號 (四) 08:25 (UTC)[回覆]

唔-少少保留；「返」好似話原本無證，後來加返，唔係正路；正路係有乜根據就寫乜。

查得到證？Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月21號 (四) 13:57 (UTC)[回覆]

但係維基百科唔收原創，資料都搵返嚟，要求「返」來源，應合乎邏輯- Hardys 2007年6月22號 (五) 01:57 (UTC)[回覆]
Verifiability 原意「可以證實」、係冇「查」嘅意思，查係證實嘅前期/暗示動作，係 Chinese Wiki 譯嘅問題 - 「證實得到」正路啲 --WikiCantona 2007年6月21號 (四) 22:08 (UTC)[回覆]
Verify 係驗證。Verifiable係可驗(?。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月22號 (五) 01:26 (UTC)[回覆]
證實 = proof = proven。咁叫 「驗證得到」不過唔係好 Cantonese. --WikiCantona 2007年6月22號 (五) 01:39 (UTC)[回覆]
維基百科唔係做"證實"，呢個肯定唔啱用，只需要資料係有出處，至於"驗證"呢？我話要去"驗證一樣嘢"會唔會有原創研究嘅意味？(我都唔知，要再研究吓)- Hardys 2007年6月22號 (五) 02:02 (UTC)[回覆]
「可以證明」 或「 證明嘅可能」 或 「證明嘅可能性」或 「可以搵到證明」。 「查得返」或 「可以查到」或 「查到嘅證明」???--WikiCantona 2007年6月22號 (五) 04:35 (UTC)[回覆]
同樣意思，我地通常會話：「有根據」，如「呢樣嘢有根據，嗰樣嘢無根據。」揾到根據都得，但無咁常用。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月24號 (日) 14:17 (UTC)[回覆]
離原意遠咗啲喎，同 Wikipedia:根據 太似。--WikiCantona 2007年6月25號 (一) 16:48 (UTC)[回覆]
就算『求證』、『考證』、『驗證』、『鑿證』係常用詞。「查証」喺廣東話唔係常用 ≈ check with. 喺 google 一搵查証，九成九係 .tw .cn 同政府、有權嘅部門有關。「查証得到」眞係唔三唔四，喺 Wikipedia 維基人喺平等嘅情況去「求證」、唔係懶有權去「查証」人！！--WikiCantona 2007年6月25號 (一) 23:05 (UTC)[回覆]
「証」係証件個証，「證」係證明、證據個證。減筆字唔分「證」同「証」。Verify應該係查下啲證明、證據。唔好用「查証」。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月26號 (二) 02:05 (UTC)[回覆]
查証 → 查身份証 . . . :-)
幾個意見：
唔係𡃓，迷倒、問倒、拉倒... 「求得到證」邊有人咁講嘢㗎？冇人會明？！ Language is not only about grammar, but how to say it right also dependent on custom. You may reject double negative in people's talking, however illogical, it is a way of speaking. --WikiCantona 2007年7月3號 (二) 03:50 (UTC)[回覆]
揾到證據－－＞求到證－－＞求得到證。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月3號 (二) 04:21 (UTC)[回覆]
得倒 is also meaningful, very meaningful indeed. If the one of many meaning is used: falling down. The terms 「迷倒」「拉倒」is right way to write the term because it gives you the visualization of the situation. 「迷倒」- 畀個古仔迷倒。 「迷到」- 本書迷到佢巔咗。得倒 vs 得到手。This is, the 得到 must follow with something. 得倒 is a visualization. no need for any modification. 求證得倒 is okay. --WikiCantona 2007年7月3號 (二) 04:26 (UTC)[回覆]
不如「可以求證」？--WikiCantona 2007年7月3號 (二) 04:33 (UTC)[回覆]
okay but...Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月3號 (二) 04:37 (UTC)[回覆]
"得倒 is also meaningful, very meaningful indeed."<--- what does "求證得倒" mean? ONe may obtain a fallen proof?Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月3號 (二) 04:37 (UTC)[回覆]
Visualize this: the evidence or proof is fallen on to you... kind of interesting? eh. 求證得倒喇！is better :-) 「得到求證喇」、「求證得嘅」、「證實倒嘅」、「可證性」？
講真啦，「求證得倒」我都係唔係最鍾意，唔知點咁。諗吓先。--WikiCantona 2007年7月3號 (二) 04:56 (UTC)[回覆]
諗吓先。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月3號 (二) 06:14 (UTC)[回覆]
呢下嘢我地叫「跌」唔叫 「倒」。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月3號 (二) 06:14 (UTC)[回覆]
諗下：我地通常點講？有時話＂Check下佢＂，即係查下佢；咁Verifiable=＂Check得到＂=查得到（「查到」分兩種發音有兩種意思）或跟先前話查得返。。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月3號 (二) 15:41 (UTC)[回覆]

其他語言嘅料[編輯]

原標題係：Sources in languages other than English，內容係"Because this is the English Wikipedia"，但係呢度係廣東話維基，廣東話維基嘅資料來源，除咗中文、仲有英文甚至日文，所以呢一部份可能唔會以翻譯方式咁寫，可能會寫到同英文原文唔同，大家要幫手睇睇，畀吓意見- Hardys 2007年6月24號 (日) 14:07 (UTC)[回覆]

  • 個人意見：可以成段唔要；當然 我地大概可以用廣東話＞中文＞英文＞日德法＞俄。。。呢種順序，但好多好嘢嘅源都唔使諗，都係英文，呢段實無乜用。只不過， 有時有法德日文嘅（數學、物理。。）書，有人譯咗做英文，有人譯咗做中文，揀邊本？原文？中？英？不過，若有可能，我會全部列曬出來。Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月24號 (日) 14:24 (UTC)[回覆]
  • 諗諗吓呢 part 其實涉及一個問題，就係翻譯，廣東話維基需唔需要一套關於翻譯嘅政策或者指引？例如一啲外文名稱，本身從來無人譯過中文名，咁維基百科有無責任安個中文名出嚟，如果咁樣做又算唔算原創？我諗係有需要傾一套關於翻譯嘅政策或者指引出嚟(如果有現成當然用現成)P.S. 呢度我係想講有無需要一個翻譯政策或者指引，而唔係想討論中文名要點譯，中文名只係舉一個例子，唔好拗咗第二樣 - Hardys 2007年6月28號 (四) 10:44 (UTC)[回覆]

Blog[編輯]

Blog is not accepted as a reliable source. This move has its rationale in itself. However, blogs nowaday is more acceptable as sources of news. Newspaper cited blogs are not uncommon. Blogs should be accepted as one (but not the sole only) source if certain conditions are met. The conditions include multiple blogs report on the same event/story. And, the blog are well known with good track record. And others you may add. Let's not make a clear cut case to reject blogs as sources all together.

The trouble for Cantonese is that many common knowledge is so well known to everyone, yet source is exist at all. The most vivid example are the previous episode in Chinese Wikipedia when zh:香港燒烤文化 (燒嘢食) has been challenged due to lacks of reliable sources. Such a common knowledge in Hong Kong, it was so difficult to find any relialbe source at first. Of course, someone found a published book as source at the end.

I don't know whether we should alter standard to accept some webpage or keep this English wikipedia high standard without any flexibility ? --WikiCantona 2007年6月25號 (一) 13:02 (UTC)[回覆]

  • Wikicantona, I don't think you got it right. You might have committed an error called en:equivocation, in the word "source". A blog being a "source", a starting point, of a piece of journalism, is different from its being the "source", the reference, of an encyclopaedic article. A journalist has professional expertise to investigate the facts, the editors check them, and the publisher puts her stamp on it. Wikipedia doesn't do any of these. An, in fact, this is one major difference between wikipedia and wikinews - see en:n:Wikinews:Original reporting. And ,again, the simple issue on (燒嘢食) was that no pubished source was provided. And again, 燒嘢食= barbeque =/=香港燒烤文化; the latter simply nicked some material from the former. They are different titles. It was a not an episode. Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月25號 (一) 14:13 (UTC)[回覆]
    • To give you a brief answer, the word "source" is intended to mean "reference", not other meaning intended. The content from blogs cannot be a reliable source because it is self publishing. I disagree. As long as certain condition are met. Blog could be a source from the wiki article. The whole idea of reliability cannot be only dependent on the media/format carrying the info. --WikiCantona 2007年6月25號 (一) 15:27 (UTC)[回覆]
      • No, the format is not the issue. The issue is that a web-log has no editorial check. Any information therein is not verified. Journalists may take the raw information from web-logs, and use their own expertise, resources for verification, and their own judgements. We don't. Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月25號 (一) 15:29 (UTC)[回覆]
        • Agree. What if the blog cited its own reliable sources ? What if the blog is talking about things that is common knowledge is so trivial to us while it is not so to a person living in Canton? --WikiCantona 2007年6月25號 (一) 16:05 (UTC)[回覆]
          • If the blog cites reliable sources, then we use those reliable sources. Common knowledge- I don't know; Here web-logs are perhaps less unreliable. Yet we may try to find a news article, or even a newspaper column, which describe it...Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月25號 (一) 16:58 (UTC)[回覆]
          • The key here is: What constitute a verification process. I don't know. Perhaps if you can find 5 or 6 independent (aye, there's the rub! independent? who know?) web-logs concurring to a fact... but then we may still be able, perhaps with some extra efforts, to find more traditional sources.Hillgentleman | 書 2007年6月25號 (一) 17:01 (UTC)[回覆]

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves[編輯]

呢 part 唔係好明講乜 - Hardys 2007年6月25號 (一) 13:07 (UTC)[回覆]

e.g. 巴士呀叔響自己嘅 blog 寫件事。--WikiCantona 2007年6月25號 (一) 14:01 (UTC)[回覆]


本地豁免[編輯]

係咪跟到足英文維基嘅標準，有啲本地（香港、澳門）用詞，早年就根本受到歧視，廣東話不出大雅之堂。咁嘅話，根本粵文百科全書需要搞，反而係引用資料嘅時候就情況，可以鬆手啲。參攷:Talk:單曲--WikiCantona (傾偈) 2021年8月4號 (三) 08:43 (UTC)[回覆]

由「https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:求證得到&oldid=1672625」收