--- slslimvirginmgmailom wrote:
JiJimboit really isn't easy, for the reason I've explained to Bjorn in my last two e-mails. Often, editors feel they don't know enough about a subject to intervene, or they simply don't want to because they have their own wawatchlisto look out for. Or maybe a citation has been offered, but it's a terrible one, yet other editors don't see that because they don't know the area.
What makes a reference a terrible one? Is the source biased by funding or other interests? Then that is a fact that should be included in an article on the source, at least.
Not that you're suggesting this, but obviously a source should not be considered "terrible" simply because you don't agree with it.
I do not see it as WiWikipedia'sole to judge "truth", but rather to describe "facts". I have only a vague concept of LaLaRouchend his ideas, and from what I know he sounds like a crackpot. But WiWikipedias not the place to analyze his ideas and attempt to stomp out his movement. Our job is to document him and his ideas, and to document significant reactions to him and his ideas. We leave it up to other groups, and up to individuals, to discern the truth. For me, that is a core element of NPNPOV
-Rich HoHolton(en.WiWikipediaser:
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com