"Tony Sidaway"
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
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.
I believe this misrepresents our policy. NPOV is very important as a guide
to both content and behavior. But it is not our only policy. Nor original
research, verifiability, and cite sources are equally important
policies. Moreover, those policies make clear that differences in the
nature and reliability or repute of sources must be taken into account and
acknowledged in articles.
If this were not the case, and if NPOV were the only policy, or a policy
that trumps all others, then Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia, it
would be a bulletin board for everyone's views on everything -- more like
Everything2, maybe. I oppose this.
I understand that the two policies -- say, NPOV and Verifiability -- may
come into conflict. On such occasions we need to be very careful as we
attempt to negotiate an outcome that is, as best possible, in accordance
with the spirit of both policies. But one cannot absolutely trump the other.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701