On 5/8/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
_It is left completely up to the reader to know whether or not the Zeitschrift is a peer reviewed journal or not, what its reputation is, and whether Frotz and Glotz are competent_.
I disagree on this point. I think sources which are regarded as questionable should be flagged as such in as NPOV a way as possible. On articles where there are sources which are in contradiction with one another, I think attribution of source info is useful for all parties.
The textbook example is for articles on various evolution/creationism disputes. If the matter is a factual statement I think it should be noted if the source is not peer reviewed or at least has an over-reaching agenda. Something as simple as (Creationist journal) is enough and not perjorative. If anybody gets irritated at that then we can label the non-Creationist, mainstream science sources as (Mainstream scientific journal).
(This might be a good place to note that "mainstream" is a very convenient way to turn an "ontological" statement into a "sociological" one. It allows you to very quickly stop arguing about the truth of something and instead turn it into a question of community consensus. Those who disagree with the mainstream opinion are usually more than happy to see it identified as such -- for them "mainstream" means "cow-like", for everyone else, "mainstream" means "reliable". In any event, such a "sociological" approach means you don't have to make WP conclude either way on an answer. I think it is one of the easiest ways to make NPOV work. Facts and opinions do not just exist by themselves in space; they are constructed and maintained by humans, and should be attributed to humans whenever possible.)
Additionally, there are a lot of things published in scientific and academic journals which are considerably controversial and not representative of the consensus of the community as whole. If they are noteworthy to the article they should of course be mentioned, but their "controversial" status should be noted. (Again, a "sociological" term, although this one is more easily conflated with "fringe" which can be interpreted as a pejorative).
Other than that, I agree with what you have said for the most part... there is nothing wrong with including "dodgy" sources, though we should not feel unhampered to give the reader neutral hints as to how they should feel about the source (noting whether it is peer-reviewed or not does not pass judgment, it is simply a statement of methodological fact, the reader may make of it what they will).
FF