On 3/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
I always understood it to mean give equal weight to the lie if ( a )
were
deliberately engaged in intellectual dishonesty, or ( b ) too lazy to investigate or just in the habit of sloppy research methods.
One begins with good faith, and most policies should work in a good faith environment first, before starting to set things up to cope with lies.
Ec
Too often we've seen "balancing material" with unbalanced material, i.e. deliberate and dishonest distortions. WP:V allowed for this, provided you could prove somebody said it somewhere sometime. Didn't matter if it was obsolete or deprecated. Under WP:V newer scholarship was cited to displace old ideas, yet the obsolete citations *still* could be used for "balance". Now we have a policy or definition. To what extent does an editor, acting in good faith, have to prove newer scholarship (for example based upon recent declassified documents), have to prove obsolete and deprecated material does not serve the purpose of NPOV?