steven l. rubenstein said:
"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.
Could you be more specific?
I'm afraid you will have to read my entire e-mail, and not just the first
sentence. I do not see how I could possibly be more specific than I am in
the three paragraphs that you didn't seem to read. If you read them and
don't think I am being specific, I am sorry but I cannot help you. It's as
specific as one can get.
But my advice to you is to read over the other policies that I mention
carefully, and perhaps read through the entire histories of the various
cases that others have mentioned as examples of prolonged conflict over
content. I think if you know more about Wikipedia policies and practices,
you will find it easier to follow this discussion.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701