On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:26, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, ???? <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >>>> Stick to what's actually occurring. >>>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu >>>> Virus >>>> or Joan of Arc ? >>>> >>> >>> One should use accredited independent sources, which in the case of >>> Statin and Flu Virus would be the appropriate international or >>> governmental medical bodies. Have used that information the article >>> should not be buggered about with. >>> >> So scientists are never wrong, government bodies are never wrong, >> minority views are not worth mentioning until they become the majority >> view? > > This is long settled. Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all > significant viewpoints. In the case of drugs that includes both > independent and drug company funded studies, government information, and > public reaction, both medical and popular. > > Fred > The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue emphasis. Some of the same people are currently trying to change the sourcing policy, Verifiability, in the same direction. I think what is needed at some point quite soon is a wiki-wide discussion about whether as a project we still support the idea of protecting significant-minority POVs. I always saw that as the point of NPOV.
Sarah _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
