[WikiEN-l] Good cites and bad cites

[Charles Matthews]

steven l. rubenstein wrote

> I think the only way to proceed is to instead distinguish between
> "controversial cites" and "uncontroversial cites."

I don't want to pretend that the problems here are either slight or
unimportant.  But there seems to be a whole tangle here, about editors
wishing to prove points.

If one is not 'pushing the envelope' of what is easy to substantiate, with
quotations from mainstream sources, then there should be little practical
difficulty. Otherwise - well, a POV may be being pushed, or an article may
be being dragged onto contentious ground. Are we not seeing Wikipedians
trying to get beyond 'some say A, others B', by knocking down B?

Anyway, citations are a means to an end.  They are supposed to aid
fact-checkers, not to build up a case.  I realise that the debates that go
on do mean people think they must present a winning case on some matters. As
ever, though, that is not what we come here for.

Charles