[WikiEN-l] Good cites and bad cites

Sun Jan 30 13:38:57 UTC 2005

steven l. rubenstein said:
> 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.
>
I don't think this is a good idea.  If I cite a British National Party
website as support for a statement about BNP official policy, I'm quoting
a source that has generated controversy, but this does not in any way
affect the fact that my citation is the most reliable way of citing BNP
official policy.  If there is some controversy over a citation it should
not be included in a NPOV article.  A form of citation must be found that
is perceived as factual by all (reasonable) parties. --~~~~