David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050121 21:31]:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Yes. I feel sufficient trepidation at separating external links into pro and con.
But in the first example the words "proven" and "in error" make POV assertions. Better: "Warning: this source relies on population projections that have been severely questioned."
Ec