I think the ambiguity is necessary -- 10 fringe sources do not
outweigh 2 sources from recognized authorities. But there's no easy
way to define fringe and authoritative, and there never will be. It's
the sort of thing which requires careful and impartial judgment, which
is something which cannot be easily codified, and attempting to codify
it is a bad idea.
I don't think we should see ambiguous policies as a deficit. Some
things will necessarily always require being hashed out each and every
time they come up, and things like "undue weight", and knowing where
to apply it, are more heuristics towards framing the discussion in a
certain direction, not an easy road to an simple answer. Discussion
and cooperation among editors will always need to take place in all
On 5/2/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
There still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, even among admins, as to what
qualifies as a majority. So here's a simple example to evaluate as a starting point.
*View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
*View Bark has 15 sources that support it.
Which has the majority? Should either be be dropped completely? Should either be
reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section deeper within the article?
Again, for simplicity, all the sources are equally reliable, reputable, and prominent.
Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable or biased, are there
any circumstances in which you would reverse the majority/minority or consider Moo and
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: