JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger Bush. It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
It's clearly not authoritative on Bush to you and me. But to the person who cites this (or similar) articles, it is no doubt quite authoritative on Bush, and everything else as well. This problem doesn't go away simply because you feel comfortable making pronouncements on what a specific website is authoritative on.
I think you're mistaking Wikipedia for a website that has unprecedented control over the ability of the reader to make a judgement.
No, I'm "mistaking" Wikipedia for an encyclopedia which has policies about content. One of them is the NPOV policy, which states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
Jay.