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

[Fred Bauder]

> 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
>

They can argue, but if we keep our heads, they cannot overturn a founding
principle. As in the Atorvastatin article when patients are running to
their doctors, saying, "My God, I can't think", and it is observable by
medical practitioners that indeed they can't, it's a significant event.
However, it does need to be put into proportion, serious effects to a few
hundred people must be weighed against efficacious help for millions.

http://www.theheart.org/article/843115.do

Note the reference to a Wall Street Journal article.

If our inclusion of this information in a Wikipedia article and placing
undue emphasis on it results in thousands of deaths because people are
afraid of the drug, then we need to look at the way it is handled, not
just to a conclusion that there can be no negative information about
useful drugs.

Fred