Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
NPOV is an editorial skill, one of the more difficult editorial skills
to learn. Trying to reduce it to a formula will not work, because
there is no perfect scenario like you outline. Sources will always
need evaluating, that is the role of editors.
"In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our
own opinion or in any other way attempt to investigate or evaluate whether they are right
or wrong." [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Check_multiple_independent_sources]
1st, not all editors are capable of evaluating. Ideally, they would be. The point of
verifiability and WP:RS is to take that part out of the editors' hands and put it into
the hands of those that meet the requirements set forth. In reality, those interested in
an article have a wide degree of evaluation skills and an even wider degree of interest in
actually using them, and articles should not be expected to sit around with inaccurate,
unsourced information for a year while these other editors get up to speed, assuming they
actually are willing and able to get up to speed. For practical purposes, while all this
evaluation is going on, there needs to be strict application of the rules. The discussion
areas and sandboxes are there for a reason. "The burden of evidence lies with the
editor who has made the edit in question...."
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Unattributed_material]
2nd, there is in fact such a "perfect" scenario at this very moment. I'll
grant you that some of the sources deserve more weight than others, but for purposes of
keeping the debate from getting lost for a year, it was simply agreed that secondary and
tertiary sources that met WP:RS would all be treated the same.~~~~Pro-Lick
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.