On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a
compilation of
information
from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is
that
the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding
ourselves,
after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all
the
views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or
even
better, although there may be sourced information which does do that
which can be included.
Fred
This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable
sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored.
It is not "simply" false. Provided such a criticism is found in a
reliable source, neutral point of view would require it be included. For
example, in a climate change article, information about the poor factual
basis of climate change denial should be included.
Fred