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.
S
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701