"Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.

I believe this misrepresents our policy. NPOV is very important as a guide to both content and behavior. But it is not our only policy. Nor original research, verifiability, and cite sources are equally important policies. Moreover, those policies make clear that differences in the nature and reliability or repute of sources must be taken into account and acknowledged in articles.

If this were not the case, and if NPOV were the only policy, or a policy that trumps all others, then Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia, it would be a bulletin board for everyone's views on everything -- more like Everything2, maybe. I oppose this.

I understand that the two policies -- say, NPOV and Verifiability -- may come into conflict. On such occasions we need to be very careful as we attempt to negotiate an outcome that is, as best possible, in accordance with the spirit of both policies. But one cannot absolutely trump the other.

Steve

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