steven l. rubenstein said:
I fear that the way this contrast is set up, we could
never reach
agreement on a good policy. Of course no cite is better than a bad
cite, because we do not want to give credibility to unreliable
sources, or even direct people there way. The problem is there are
many citations where people will vociferously argue whether they are
good or bad.
I think the only way to proceed is to instead distinguish between
"controversial cites" and "uncontroversial cites." Both can be
provided; if a cite is controversial we simply explain what the nature
of the controversy is (something we are all well-practiced in doing
already, to comply with the NPOV policy in writing articles.
I don't think this is a good idea. If I cite a British National Party
website as support for a statement about BNP official policy, I'm quoting
a source that has generated controversy, but this does not in any way
affect the fact that my citation is the most reliable way of citing BNP
official policy. If there is some controversy over a citation it should
not be included in a NPOV article. A form of citation must be found that
is perceived as factual by all (reasonable) parties. --~~~~