I fear that the way this contrast is set up, we could never reach agreement
on a good policy. Of course no cite is better than a bad cite, because we
do not want to give credibility to unreliable sources, or even direct
people there way. The problem is there are many citations where people
will vociferously argue whether they are good or bad.
I think the only way to proceed is to instead distinguish between
"controversial cites" and "uncontroversial cites." Both can be
provided;
if a cite is controversial we simply explain what the nature of the
controversy is (something we are all well-practiced in doing already, to
comply with the NPOV policy in writing articles.
S
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701