[WikiEN-l] What's wrong with a dodgy source, properly identified?

Mon May 9 05:17:27 UTC 2005

On 5/8/05, dpbsmith at verizon.net <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> _It is left completely up to the reader to know whether or not the
> Zeitschrift is a peer reviewed journal or not, what its reputation is,
> and whether Frotz and Glotz are competent_.

I disagree on this point. I think sources which are regarded as
questionable should be flagged as such in as NPOV a way as possible.
On articles where there are sources which are in contradiction with
one another, I think attribution of source info is useful for all
parties.

The textbook example is for articles on various evolution/creationism
disputes. If the matter is a factual statement I think it should be
noted if the source is not peer reviewed or at least has an
over-reaching agenda. Something as simple as (Creationist journal) is
enough and not perjorative. If anybody gets irritated at that then we
can label the non-Creationist, mainstream science sources as
(Mainstream scientific journal).

(This might be a good place to note that "mainstream" is a very
convenient way to turn an "ontological" statement into a
"sociological" one. It allows you to very quickly stop arguing about
the truth of something and instead turn it into a question of
community consensus. Those who disagree with the mainstream opinion
are usually more than happy to see it identified as such -- for them
"mainstream" means "cow-like", for everyone else, "mainstream" means
"reliable". In any event, such a "sociological" approach means you
don't have to make WP conclude either way on an answer. I think it is
one of the easiest ways to make NPOV work. Facts and opinions do not
just exist by themselves in space; they are constructed and maintained
by humans, and should be attributed to humans whenever possible.)

Additionally, there are a lot of things published in scientific and
academic journals which are considerably controversial and not
representative of the consensus of the community as whole. If they are
noteworthy to the article they should of course be mentioned, but
their "controversial" status should be noted. (Again, a "sociological"
term, although this one is more easily conflated with "fringe" which
can be interpreted as a pejorative).

Other than that, I agree with what you have said for the most part...
there is nothing wrong with including "dodgy" sources, though we
should not feel unhampered to give the reader neutral hints as to how
they should feel about the source (noting whether it is peer-reviewed
or not does not pass judgment, it is simply a statement of
methodological fact, the reader may make of it what they will).

FF