Talk:美國國會大廈衝突

出自維基百科,自由嘅百科全書
跳去導覽 跳去搵嘢

"又有反侵組織安提法嘅人混徂入去群撑侵嘅人度搞搞震" not reliable source. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#False_flag_conspiracy_theories

Acnetj (傾偈) 2021年1月12號 (二) 22:11 (UTC)

@AcnetjI have added 2 new references and searched for the relation between this protest and antifa. Could you check it again? Thanks. Best regards --維基小傢伙 (傾偈) 2021年1月13號 (三) 01:45 (UTC)
@Matttest Nearly all references for that quote are from The Epoch Times and it should not be used as a reference for facts. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources The other source from New York Post isn't sufficient either because of poor credibility. Acnetj (傾偈) 2021年1月13號 (三) 12:38 (UTC)
@AcnetjHello, The Epoch Times and The New York Post is not consider unreliable in Cantonese Wikipedia. The rules in English Wikipedia does not apply to other Wikipedia. If you want to discuss the reliability of the sources. Please start a new discussion.唔重要嘅人 (傾偈) 2021年1月13號 (三) 15:08 (UTC)
@唔重要嘅人 This is about a US event and referenced US sources that are not considered reliable by the primary Wikipedia in US. It is about an allegation regarding facts, not cultural perspective. Acnetj (傾偈) 2021年1月13號 (三) 22:28 (UTC)
@Acnetj Hello, could I repeat once more, the referenced sources may not be considered reliable in the US or English Wikipedia, but it is not considered unreliable in yue wiki (this one). If you think that the sources is unreliable, please start a new discussion on WP:城市論壇. Best regards --維基小傢伙 (傾偈) 2021年1月14號 (四) 01:53 (UTC)
@Acnetj Sorry for all the pings, but if you need any help bringing this issue to WP:VPP for discussion, I can assist you with translations. In my opinion though, while The Epoch Times' reports regarding CCP are often exaggerated (i.e. unreliable), the reliability of the other articles of theirs is worth exploring. H78c67c·傾偈 2021年1月15號 (五) 23:59 (UTC)

爾啲嘢主要講學術邏輯。正如,南韓報章寫嘅北韓資料,以北韓法律計,多數都唔可靠,點解韓文維基又可以引述來形容北韓呢?大紀元時報喺美國勁紅,大把人睇,政府都無禁,人哋重要周不時引述到可靠來源;之不過係英文維基嗰些少上徂位嘅睇場友,主觀判斷話份好多人睇嘅報紙唔可靠啫[1],勿跟啦。爾間媒體同規模大嘅,都係有流料同堅料,當然比重有分别,要逐篇個别睇。英文維基喺學術界,夠唔係可靠參考咯[2]。大台政治先行唔代表分支唔可以學術為重。大把假資料夠留徂喺嗰度,再封鎖埋阻止編輯添。掌權嗰班人又唔係個個都似大英百科全書編者咁樣,都係相關課題嘅專家。大家都知道,中文維基有大把管理員亂來,搞到停權收場,英文維基有相同缺陷。165.228.11.59討論) 2021年1月15號 (五) 16:03 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, many editors of the English Wikipedia are poor in the English language. How could one suppose that they are more superior to us? Quite a lot of such writers are not qualified to write in any old school encyclopaedias. We should be confident the Cantonese editors here are not worse than them in this regard. Choose some English articles which do not serve obvious (commercial, religious, political...) advertising purposes, and then read them carefully. It is easy to find plenty of grammatical mistakes there. There is no need to describe how terrible the language used in their counterparts in the Standard Chinese Wikipedia is.165.228.11.59討論) 2021年1月15號 (五) 23:40 (UTC)

@165.228.11.59 咁又唔係單睇個張報紙受歡迎程度嚟分嘅。最重要都係睇返文章內容,加以分析,再分辦呢個來源係咪可以加入嚟。老實講,亂加來源響中維不時都有,英維都唔少。Akai 博士 (傾偈) 2021年1月16號 (六) 09:50 (UTC)
意見觀點嘅仔細查證唔係問題,問題係如果要提倡使用啲所謂權威嘅來源,係咪會導致本地跟埋做審查性嘅選擇。——Longway22 (傾偈) 2021年1月16號 (六) 10:35 (UTC)
Be honour,I am not really sure what Acnetj could assist us to make sure our decison wouldn't hinder our progress on understanding of struggle in USA. It would be helpful if there could be more source of different opinions on those details.As quote“mission of the Wikipedia isn't providing truth but providing the every different views for users”,I believe we shouldn't be the Jury OR Judge of court to those questions real or not.The Cantonses Community have quality to figure out the questions based on different kinds of views being shared on board.It must be careful of planning to censor other Community‘s value of learning the project,as you should consider the hard time of free speech in Cantonese and relevant Community.——Longway22 (傾偈) 2021年1月16號 (六) 11:10 (UTC)
係囉,反正篇文咁短,加長無妨。不如大家引多啲來源,對每條覺得對路或者唔妥嘅常聽指控深究下重好啦。165.228.11.59討論) 2021年1月16號 (六) 13:09 (UTC)
Agree of what Longway22has said, Wikipedia is not a place for regarding facts but a place for providing different views of opinions. --維基小傢伙 (傾偈) 2021年1月17號 (日) 05:32 (UTC)
@Matttest I disagree with you in this regard. An encyclopaedia, by definition, collects facts, not opinions. The facts are supported by evidence (references) presented by different point of views. H78c67c·傾偈 2021年1月17號 (日) 07:21 (UTC)
While it is true that Wikipedia includes various view points, they should be described in a way that does not imply endorsement of such POVs. They should be introduced in a fact-describing manner, e.g. “A believes that ..., while B thinks that ...”, with appropriate references supporting different claims. This is what I mean by collecting facts in this context: the fact that someone claimed something. H78c67c·傾偈 2021年1月17號 (日) 07:50 (UTC)
@H78c67c如果篇文可以用事實來講緊係最好啦 (例如科學事實),但係對於呢篇文嚟講 - 安提法有冇參與其中都有爭議,就要講吓唔同嘅睇法。同意你講嘅嗰句 ”They should be introduced in a fact-describing manner, e.g. “A believes that ..., while B thinks that ...”, with appropriate references supporting different claims.”維基小傢伙 (傾偈) 2021年1月17號 (日) 12:29 (UTC)
呢度轉譯或者仲係有啲傳達偏差,個人引用時候唔係睇原句(presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"),係中立支柱入邊所話嘅指標。 Acnetj唔出聲參與討論個人亦唔知爭議係咪可以擱置先,事實係就中維度所經歷嘅對「事實」本身嘅存在,並唔係依賴我哋所一路信任嘅機制,而係採用各種弔詭官僚而爛打嘅手段,導致唔同領域嘅採編都難以發展甚至倒退、被剷除等等。個人認為如果要編輯嘅時候再講「證據」,就好容易跌入危險嘅境地,要考慮粵維同相關聯嘅語維所處法律環境,相當嘅一部分本身就唔係可正常討論嘅情況。冇全面感受到不對等審查威脅嘅編輯同管理希望可以意識到呢啲風險,同埋確保到呢啲風險唔會喺擴展落去,因為本身成個嘅框架係承擔咗唔對等嘅風險。
事實要判定,尤其係涉及罪行存在嘅情況會係一個法律問題,呢個既然係一個疑案,本地編輯係有疑問嘅,係咪就一定要搵到可以證明嘅證據?而且係發生喺美國中央核心,司法機制亦啟動咁,相信佢哋公正處理嘅能力係會行之有效而遠高過不對等地方嘅。即使係可能失真嘅信息,既有爭議就可以簡單咁表述返,有疑點喺入邊,但無論點本地畢竟唔係當地嘅Jury或者Judge,只能夠係喺了解資訊情況嘅編輯提供協作之下盡力去做好,唔一定會還原到所有嘅事實同角度。 Longway22 (傾偈) 2021年1月17號 (日) 08:11 (UTC)

[編輯]