stevertigo wrote:
As I said before sources are often just claims and
interpretations, and
virtually none of it is "facts." So why should Wikipedia expect to be a higher
standard? And of we want to introduce some value judgements about who's
interpretations are more correct, we need to understand that such is often too
close to POV to deal with without some broader editorial policy (and heirarchy).
In a higher standard one honours bullshit for what it is no matter who
says it. That's better than deleting it and pretending it was never said.
Ec