Original Research versus Point of View, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho

[Ray Saintonge]

JAY JG wrote:

>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some
>> folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it 
>> provides
>> for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be 
>> established by
>> reliable references.
>
> "Reliable references", there's the rub.  How do we establish that?  
> Just today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a 
> "reliable reference".  A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are 
> Nazis" website.  Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website.  And of 
> course, these people consider any counter websites you bring to be 
> "unreliable", "POV", "propaganda", etc.  What do you do then?

The problem is that "reliable" itself represents a POV, and is not above 
it.  Trashing each other's references is no better than trashing each 
other's direct comments on the subject.  Assuming that it has some 
relevance to the article, I am not bothered by a link to a 
Holocaust-denial website, nor to one that takes a contrary view.  There 
is a place for both, though they might be divided into "References for" 
and "References against" whatever the point in dispute might be. 

If it turns out that one of those references is to a site of dubious 
character, as a Holocaust-denial site might be, we need to trust the 
user's good judgement without trying to play the role of a parent 
telling his children what to do.

Ec