[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

SlimVirgin slimvirgin at gmail.com
Sun Oct 24 18:46:07 UTC 2010

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:26, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, ???? <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, WJhonson at 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.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list