NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)

Fri Dec 10 00:03:47 UTC 2004

--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Mark Richards wrote:
> > This becomes more and more difficult in
> controversial subjects, like
> > water floridization (sp?) for example, or ESP. Who
> are the 'experts'
> > on the subject?
> 
> I don't really see what the difficulty is.  I'm not
> trying to be dense
> here, but to me this is quite simple.
> 
> Our current article on Extra-Sensory Perception, for
> example, is quite
> bad.  And the reason is precisely the lack of
> _credible_ sources.
> These exist, but the current article appears to be
> written by people
> who would prefer for these not to be named.
> 
> --Jimbo

I think we may be at cross purposes. I think the
difficulty is in identifying who the credible sources
are, and with whom they are credible when you are
dealing with things that some people think are
pseudoscience and others think are suppressed truth.
The only way to go I suppose is the 'he said / she
said' model of article like 'Moon hoax'.
Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 