Hi everyone, this is my first post. I've been
reading the archives
about NPOV and "no original research" with interest, as I feel they're
the backbone of Wikipedia. It seems to me that, taken together, they
provide a solid policy base, with no inherent contradiction. NPOV only
refers to Auntie Gertie's views on relativity if those views have been
published in a reputable, and for academic subjects this means
peer-reviewed, journal. The same goes for non-academic subjects. The
views must have been published in a reputable newspaper or other
publisher, where articles go through a system comparable to peer
review by being checked by writers/journalists, editors, lawyers (or,
at least, they're supposed to be).
The problem I've run into is that partisans on different sides of an issue
will insist that the sources brought by the other side are "biased" or not
reputable. Is CNN reputable? Fox? Al Jazeera? The Jerusalem Post? How
about Al Ahram (which, though the oldest daily newspaper in the Arab world,
has its controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information)? What about
even less well known sources?