安徽：16个市“交叉互查”严打假种子－地方新闻－时政频道－中工网

?? ?????? ????????????? ??????????????? ???? ??????????? ????????? ?????????????
?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??????????? ?????? ???? ?????: ????????????

??????????? (???????: ?wi?ki?pi?di? ?? ?w?k??pi?di?) ????? ???? ????????, ????????????, ????? ????????????????? ???????? ???????? “Wikipedia” (???????????) ?????? ????? “Wiki” (????), ??? ???? ??????????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????? ??? “Encyclopedia” (????????) ???? ???? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?????

??????????? ???? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???????????? ??-???? ??????? ???????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ????????, ???? ???? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???? ???????? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? ??,???-??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????????????? ?????? ??? ?,??,?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ???? ????????????? ????, ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?? ???????????? ??????? ??? (??? ?????: ??????????)?

????????????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????, ??? ???? ???? ?????? (????? ??????) ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????, ??? ??????, ??? ?????? ? ????????? ????????? ????????????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????-? ???????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? “????????” ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????, ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???; ??????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ? ???????????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????????????? ????????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???, ???? ???????? ????????????? ???????????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????, ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????

?????? ??????????? ????? ???? ????? ?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????, ??? ??? ????????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????????????, ?????? ?????????? ???? ????, ?????? ????, ???????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? (??????? ???????? ??????????? ?????)? ????, ??????????? ????? ???????? ??? ?????, ?? ???????? ????????? ????? ???? ??????, ????????????? ????? ????????? ???? ??? ???????, ???????? ?????????? ???, ?? ????? ???????; ???????, ????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?????

???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ????????, ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ? ?????? ????????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??, ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ?????? (?????????), ?????????? ???? ???????-? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????????? ???????? ? ???????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????

??????????? ?????????

???????????? ??????

??? ??????: ???????????? ??????

wikipedia.org ?????????, ??? ????? ???????????? ???????

???????????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????????? ??????????????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?????????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ??????, ?????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????, ???? ??????, ???????????? ??????????? ? ?????? ?????????, ???? ???? ? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????, ?????? ???? ??, ????????????? ?????? ??? ????? ? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??, ????-? ????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????; ??? ??????????? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ???? ?????

???????????? ??????? ??????? ? ??????????????????? ????? ???????????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ????, ??? ???? ?? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? “???????????” ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????????,????-? (???? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ????? ????)? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????? ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????????????, ??????? ? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????, ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????? wikipedia.org -?? ????????? ??? ??? ??????????? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ???, ???? “.org” ??????? ?-??????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ????-? “wiki” ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????

?? ????-? ?????? ???????????? ???? ???? ??????????? ???? ???—???????, ????, ???????, ??????????, ?????, ???????, ??????, ???????, ??????, ????????, ???, ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ? ??????????, ??? ???????????, ?????, ??? ???????????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ? ????? ???? ?????????, ?????????? ??? ????????????????? ????? ????????????? ???????? ????? ?????

?????????? ? ???????

???????????, ??????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????????, ?? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????, ????? ????, ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????, ???????? ? ???????????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????

???????? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????????-??????/???????? ???????? (CC-BY-SA) ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ???????? (GFDL)? ? ???? ??? ??? ??????????, ???? ?????? ???; ??? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ????????? CC-BY-SA ??? CC-BY-SA ????????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ?????? GFDL-?? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???; ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? (Footer) ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????/?????? ???? ??????, ?????? ????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????

???????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ????????, ?? CC-BY-SA ??? GFDL ?????? ????????? ???????, ???????????? ? ????? ??? ????? (??????? ????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ?????)?

??????????? ?????????

??? ????????: ???????????:????????????? ???? ????? ? ???????????:????????????

???? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???, ????? ????????????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????????? ??? ????????, ???????-?????? ??????? ?????? ??,??? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ????????????? ???????? ??? ? ???????? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????: ????????? ??????????

????????????? ????? ????? ???? ??????????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ????, ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???? ? ??????????????????????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ??? ? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????????????? ?? ?? ??????? ????, ????? ????? ????????????? ? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ? ????? ???????? ? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???; ?????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??????

???? ??????????? ????????? ?? ??????????? ???????????????, ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????

???????????? ????????? ??????? ???

??????????? ????????

??? ????: ???????????:????????

????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????, ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ????, ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???????????? ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ??????? ????????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????, ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ????????? ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????

??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? (????? ????? other language versions), ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????, ????, ?? ? ????????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? (?? ???????)? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????, ???????????? ? ??????????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ??????????? ???? ? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????

???????????? ??????? ????????

??? ????: ???????????:??????? ????????

Wikipedia articles are all linked, or cross-referenced. Wherever you see highlighted text like this, it means there is a link to some relevant article or Wikipedia page with further in-depth information elsewhere if you need it. Holding your mouse over the link will often show you where a link will take you. You are always one click away from more information on any point that has a link attached. There are other links towards the ends of most articles, for other articles of interest, relevant external Web sites and pages, reference material, and organized categories of knowledge which you can search and traverse in a loose hierarchy for more information. Some articles may also have links to dictionary definitions, audio-book readings, quotations, the same article in other languages, and further information available on our sister projects. You can add further links if a relevant link is missing, and this is one way to contribute.

??????? ??????? ?????? ???????????? ???????

??? ????????: ???????????:???????????? ???? ?????? ? ???????????:???????????? ??????????

As a wiki, articles are never complete. They are continually edited and improved over time. In general, this results in an upward trend of quality and a growing consensus over a fair and balanced representation of information.

Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information. Indeed, many articles start their lives as partisan; and, after a long process of discussion, debate, and argument, they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may, for a while, become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time—months perhaps—to achieve better balanced coverage of their subject. In part, this is because editors often contribute content in which they have a particular interest and do not attempt to make each article that they edit comprehensive. However, eventually, additional editors expand and contribute to articles and strive to achieve balance and comprehensive coverage. In addition, Wikipedia operates a number of internal resolution processes that can assist when editors disagree on content and approach. Usually, the editors eventually reach a consensus on ways to improve the article.

The ideal Wikipedia article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge. An increasing number of articles reach this standard over time, and many already have. Our best articles are called Featured Articles (and display a small star in the upper right corner of the article), and our second best tier of articles are designated Good Articles. However, this is a process and can take months or years to be achieved, as each user adds their contribution in turn. Some articles contain statements which have not yet been fully cited. Others will later be augmented with new sections. Some information will be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded and, therefore, may be removed or expounded.

While the overall trend is toward improvement, it is important to use Wikipedia carefully if it is intended to be used as a research source, since individual articles will, by their nature, vary in quality and maturity. Guidelines and information pages are available to help users and researchers do this effectively, as is an article that summarizes third-party studies and assessments of the reliability of Wikipedia.

??????????? ???? ???????? ????????

??? ??????: ???? ???? ??? ( ??????????? ???? ??????)

Wikipedia has advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias. Wikipedia has a very low "publishing" cost for adding or expanding entries and a low environmental impact, since it need never be printed. In addition, Wikipedia has wikilinks instead of in-line explanations and it incorporates overview summaries (article introductions) with the extensive detail of a full article. Additionally, the editorial cycle is short. A paper encyclopedia stays the same until the next edition, whereas editors can update Wikipedia at any instant, around the clock, to help ensure that articles stay abreast of the most recent events and scholarship.

?????, ????????, ??? ???????????? ???????? ???

??? ????????: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great ? Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great

??? ?????: Reliability of Wikipedia ? Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia

Wikipedia's greatest strengths, weaknesses, and differences all arise because it is open to anyone, it has a large contributor base, and its articles are written by consensus, according to editorial guidelines and policies.

• Wikipedia is open to a large contributor base, drawing a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds. This allows Wikipedia to significantly reduce regional and cultural bias found in many other publications, and makes it very difficult for any group to censor and impose bias. A large, diverse editor base also provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. A large number of editors contributing at any moment also means that Wikipedia can produce excellent encyclopedic articles and resources covering newsworthy events within hours or days of their occurrence. It also means that like any publication, Wikipedia may reflect the cultural, age, socio-economic, and other biases of its contributors. There is no systematic process to make sure that "obviously important" topics are written about, so Wikipedia may contain unexpected oversights and omissions. While most articles may be altered by anyone, in practice editing will be performed by a certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to afford a computer rather than poor, et cetera) and may, therefore, show some bias. Some topics may not be covered well, while others may be covered in great depth.

• Allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. While blatant vandalism is usually easily spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. However, bias that would be unchallenged in a traditional reference work is likely to be ultimately challenged or considered on Wikipedia. While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling articles and those monitored less well may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information. Wikipedia's radical openness also means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state, such as in the middle of a large edit, or a controversial rewrite. Many contributors do not yet comply fully with key policies, or may add information without citable sources. Wikipedia's open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be relatively promptly corrected. Numerous editors at any given time are monitoring recent changes and edits to articles on their watchlist.

• Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus – an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time. Eventually for most articles, all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached. In reality, the process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles fluid or changeable for a long time while they find their "neutral approach" that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is occasionally made harder by extreme-viewpoint contributors. Wikipedia operates a full editorial dispute resolution process, one that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth, but one that also permits disagreements to last for months before poor-quality or biased edits are removed.

That said, articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions, and while misinformation and vandalism are usually corrected quickly, this does not always happen. (See for example this incident in which a person inserted a fake biography linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations and Soviet Russia as a joke on a co-worker which went undetected for four months, saying afterwards he "didn’t know Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool.") Therefore, a common conclusion is that it is a valuable resource and provides a good reference point on its subjects.

The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia retains a history of all edits and changes, thus information added to Wikipedia never "vanishes". Discussion pages are an important resource on contentious topics. Therefore, serious researchers can often find a wide range of vigorously or thoughtfully advocated viewpoints not present in the consensus article. Like any source, information should be checked. A 2005 editorial by a BBC technology writer comments that these debates are probably symptomatic of new cultural learnings that are happening across all sources of information (including search engines and the media), namely "a better sense of how to evaluate information sources."

?????????

?????????
??? ?????????
?????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????
????????
????????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????

??? ????: ???????????:?????? ?????????

???????????? ????????????? ???????????? ??? ????? ???? ?????????

???????? ???? ??????????? ??? ????????????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ????????????? ????? ??? ??? ??? A selection of similar disclaimers from places which are often regarded as reliable (including sources such as Encyclop?dia Britannica, Associated Press, and the Oxford English Dictionary) can be read and compared at Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. Wikipedia content advisories can also be found here.

????????????? ?????

Main articles: Contributing to Wikipedia, First steps in editing articles, New contributors' help page

Guide to fixing vandalism: Help:Reverting

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia by clicking on the Edit this page tab in an article. Before beginning to contribute however, you should check out some handy helping tools such as the tutorial and the policies and guidelines, as well as our welcome page. It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions. "The five pillars of Wikipedia" cover this approach and are recommended reading before editing. (Vandals are reported via the Administrator Notice Board and may be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia.)

Most articles start as stubs, but after many contributions, they can become featured articles. Once you have determined a topic you are interested in, you may want to request that the article be written (or you could even research the issue and write it yourself). Wikipedia has many on-going projects, focused on specific topic areas or tasks, which help coordinate editing. The hope of any contributor is to provide useful and accurate information to others, and the projects help coordinate efforts.

???????????? ???? ???????? ???

Main article, including list of common mark-up shortcuts: Wikipedia:How to edit a page

Wikipedia uses a simple yet powerful page layout to allow editors to concentrate on adding material rather than page design. These include automatic sections and subsections, automatic references and cross-references, image and table inclusion, indented and listed text, links, ISBNs, and math, as well as usual formatting elements and most world alphabets and common symbols. Most of these have simple formats that are deliberately very easy and intuitive.

The page layout consists of tabs along the top of the window. These are:

• Article. Shows the main Wikipedia article.
• Discussion. Shows a user discussion about the articles topics and possible topics, controversies, etc.
• Edit this page. This tab allows users to edit the article. Depending on the controversy surrounding the topic, this tab may not be shown for all users. (For example, any user who is not an administrator, will not be able to edit the Main Page).
• History. This tab allows readers to view the editors of the article and the changes that have been made.
• Watch. By clicking on the watch tab, any changes made to the article will be displayed on your watchlist. (Note: when this tab is clicked, it changes to an unwatch tab.)

Wikipedia has robust version and reversion controls. This means that poor-quality edits or vandalism can quickly and easily be reversed or brought up to an appropriate standard by any other editor, so inexperienced editors cannot accidentally do permanent harm if they make a mistake in their editing. As there are many more editors intent on improving articles than not, error-ridden articles are usually corrected promptly.

???????????? ??????????? ??????

??? ????: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief

Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented.

The appropriate policies and guidelines for these are found at:

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which summarizes what belongs in Wikipedia and what does not;
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which describes Wikipedia's mandatory core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing;
3. Wikipedia:No original research, which prohibits the use of Wikipedia to publish personal views and original research of editors and defines Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia of existing recognized knowledge;
4. Wikipedia:Verifiability, which explains that it must be possible for readers to verify all content against credible external sources (following the guidance in the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer that is linked-to at the bottom of every article);
5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which explains what factors determine whether a source is acceptable;
6. Wikipedia:Citing sources, which describes the manner of citing sources so that readers can verify content for themselves; and
7. Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which offers a style guide—in general editors tend to acquire knowledge of appropriate writing styles and detailed formatting over time.

These are often abbreviated to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:MOS respectively.

????????? ???????, ??????????, ??? ???????????

??? ????: Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control

The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role he/she may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present, around a 75–80% approval rating after enquiry is considered the requirement for such a role, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of aspects within Wikipedia.

A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes, and its members are elected in three regularly rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision-making process in which all regular editors can equally participate.

Theoretically all editors and users are treated equally with no "power structure". There is, however a hierarchy of permissions:

1. Anyone can edit most of the articles here. Some articles are protected due to vandalism or edit-warring, and can only be edited by certain editors.
2. Anyone with an account that has been registered for four days or longer and made 10 edits becomes Autoconfirmed, and can do three things that IP users (also referred to somewhat incorrectly as "anonymous editors") cannot do:
   • They can move articles.
   • They can edit semi-protected articles.
   • They can vote in certain elections.
3. Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain tools that make editing easier and faster. Most of those tools, few learn about, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.
4. Administrators ("admins" or "sysops") have been elected by the community, and have access to a few more tools. They can delete articles, can block accounts or IP addresses, and can edit fully protected articles.
5. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is kind of like Wikipedia's supreme court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of ArbCom are elected to three-year terms on a rotating schedule, and they tend to be selected from among the pool of admins.
6. Bureaucrats are elected via a process similar to how admins are selected. There are not very many B-crats, and they can add or remove admin rights, approve or revoke "bot" privileges, and rename user accounts.
7. Stewards are the top echelon, other than the Wikimedia Board of Directors. Stewards can do a few technical things, and one almost never hears much about them, as they normally only act when a local admin or bureaucrat is not available, and hence almost never on the English Wikipedia. There are very few stewards.

Jimmy Wales, technically a Steward, in 2009 was moved to a new user access group called Founder, but does not expect to be treated any differently than any other editor.

?????? ? ????????? ????????

Main articles: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon.

• Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone.
• Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach, or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process.
• Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of "Internet sock puppets" or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.

In addition, brand new users (until they have established themselves a bit) may at the start find that their votes are given less weight by editors in some informal polls, in order to prevent abuse of single-purpose accounts.

????????? ??? ?????????????

As well as systems to catch and control substandard and vandalistic edits, Wikipedia also has a full style and content manual and a variety of positive systems for continual article review and improvement. Examples of the processes include peer review, good article assessment, and the featured article process, a rigorous review of articles that are intended to meet the highest standards and showcase Wikipedia's capability to produce high-quality work.

In addition, specific types of article or fields often have their own specialized and comprehensive projects, assessment processes (such as biographical article assessment), and expert reviewers within specific subjects. Nominated articles are also frequently the subject of specific focus under projects such as the Neutrality Project or are covered under editorial drives by groups such as the Cleanup Taskforce.

??????? ????????????

??????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ???, ??????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????: ?? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????, ????? ????? Technical FAQs? ??????????? ?? ????????? ????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ????????????? ?????? ????

?????? ? ????? ?????

??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????????????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????

??????? ????????? ?????? (????????? ?? FAQ)

??? ????: ???????????:?????????

• ????????? ????
• ???????????:??????????? ?????????

????? ??????

????????????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??????????; ???? ??????, ????????????, ???????, ??? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????????  :

• Talk pages—the associated discussion page for discussion of an article or policy's contents (usually the first place to go);
• Wikipedia:Vandalism—a facility for reporting vandalism (you are encouraged to fix vandalism yourself as well as report it);
• Dispute resolution—the procedure for handling disputes that remain unresolved within an article's talk space; and
• Village pump—the Wikipedia discussion area, part of the community portal.

??? ?????:

• Bug tracker—a facility for reporting problems with the Wikipedia Web site or the MediaWiki software that runs it;
• Village pump: proposals page—a place for making non-policy suggestions; and
• Wikipedia:Help desk—Wikipedia's general help desk, if other pages have not answered your query.

?????? ??????? ? ?????? ??????

Facilities for help for users researching specific topics can be found at:

• Wikipedia:Requested articles—to suggest or request articles for the future.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk—to ask for help with any questions, or in finding specific facts.

Because of the nature of Wikipedia, it is encouraged that people looking for information should try to find it themselves in the first instance. If, however, you come across valid information missing from Wikipedia, be bold and add it yourself so others can gain from your research, too.

?????????? ??????

?????? ????????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????? Village pump, ???? ??????????? ?????? announcements, policy and technical discussion, and information on other specialized portals such as the help, reference and peer review desks. The Community Portal is a centralized place to find things to do, collaborations, and general editing help information, and find out what is happening.

????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???? ??????

If you need more information, the first place to go is the Help:Contents. To contact individual contributors, leave a message on their talk page. Standard places to ask policy and project-related questions are the village pump, online, and the Wikipedia mailing lists, over e-mail. You can also reach other Wikipedians via IRC and e-mail.

In addition, you could try the Wikimedia Foundation meta-wiki, a site for coordinating the various Wikipedia projects and sister projects (and abstract discussions of policy and direction). Also available are many different places for submitting bug reports and feature requests.

?????? ???? ????????? ???????? ?????? : Wikipedia:Contact us.

????????? ??????? ? ???????

?? ????????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?,??,?????? ???? ??? ??????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????

??,??,???+ ??????
• ???????
• ????
• Cebuano
• Deutsch
• English
• Espa?ol
• ?????
• Fran?ais
• Italiano
• Nederlands
• 日本語
• Polski
• Português
• Русский
• Svenska
• Укра?нська
• Ti?ng Vi?t
• Winaray
• 中文
?,??,???+ ??????
• Afrikaans
• Asturianu
• Az?rbaycanca
• ??????
• Беларуская
• Български
• Català
• Нохчийн
• ?e?tina
• Cymraeg
• Dansk
• Ελληνικ?
• Esperanto
• Eesti
• Euskara
• Suomi
• Galego
• ?????
• ??????
• Hrvatski
• Magyar
• ???????
• Bahasa Indonesia
• ???????
• ?аза?ша
• ???
• Latina
• Ladin
• Lietuvi?
• Македонски
• Minangkabau
• Bahasa Melayu
• ??????????
• Norsk nynorsk
• Norsk bokm?l
• Roman?
• Srpskohrvatski
• Simple English
• Sloven?ina
• Sloven??ina
• Shqip
• Srpski
• ?????
• ??????
• То?ик?
• ???
• Türk?e
• Татарча / tatar?a
• ????
• O?zbekcha / ?збекча
• 閩南語 / Ban-lam-gí
• 粵語
??????? ?????????? ???????? ??????
• ??????
• ???????
• ????
• ???????
• ????????????? ???????
• ??????
• ??????????
• ?????? ?????? / G?ychi Konknni
• ???????
• ?????
• ?????
• ??????
• ??????
• ?????
• ??????
• ????? ????
• ?????
• ??????
• ??????
• ????
• ????
• ?????????
• ????
• ?????
• ???????

?????????????

??????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????

	????????? ???????? ???????			????-?????? ?????? ? ?????????????			????-????? ???????? ????? ???
	????-?? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????????			????-????? ?????-???????? ?????			????-???? ??? ????????? ??????????? ? ????????
	????-?????????????? ???????? ?????? ??????			????-??????? ?????????? ??????????			??????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????

???????????? ??? ????? ??, ???????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ????, ??? ???????? ????? ???????????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? (wiki-), ?? (-pedia), ?? ???? ???? ???????????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????????? ??? ???

?????????

??? ?????

• Broughton, John. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, (2008) O'Reilly Media ???????? ?-???-?????-?
• ??????????? ???? ? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????