NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

Hi everyone, this is my first post. I've been reading the archives
about NPOV and "no original research" with interest, as I feel they're
the backbone of Wikipedia. It seems to me that, taken together, they
provide a solid policy base, with no inherent contradiction. NPOV only
refers to Auntie Gertie's views on relativity if those views have been
published in a reputable, and for academic subjects this means
peer-reviewed, journal. The same goes for non-academic subjects. The
views must have been published in a reputable newspaper or other
publisher, where articles go through a system comparable to peer
review by being checked by writers/journalists, editors, lawyers (or,
at least, they're supposed to be).

I feel there will be very examples where NPOV and "no original
research" taken together will not solve an issue; and editors should
provide references whenever they can so that readers can check for
themselves that the "no original research"  principle was adhered to.
Requiring editors to get in the habit of providing references seems to
me to be the key.

Slim