On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:26, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
On Sun, Oct
24, 2010 at 11:25, ???? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/10/2010 17:01, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
Stick to what's actually occurring.
What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu
Virus
or Joan of Arc ?
One should use accredited independent sources, which in the case of
Statin and Flu Virus would be the appropriate international or
governmental medical bodies. Have used that information the article
should not be buggered about with.
So scientists are never wrong, government bodies are never wrong,
minority views are not worth mentioning until they become the majority
view?
This is long settled. Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all
significant viewpoints. In the case of drugs that includes both
independent and drug company funded studies, government information, and
public reaction, both medical and popular.
Fred
The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
emphasis. Some of the same people are currently trying to change the
sourcing policy, Verifiability, in the same direction. I think what is
needed at some point quite soon is a wiki-wide discussion about
whether as a project we still support the idea of protecting
significant-minority POVs. I always saw that as the point of NPOV.
Sarah