Tony Sidaway (minorityreport(a)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."