> On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote: >> I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of >> information >> from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is >> that >> the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding >> ourselves, >> after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all >> the >> views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or >> even >> better, although there may be sourced information which does do that >> which can be included. >> >> Fred > > This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable > sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored.
It is not "simply" false. Provided such a criticism is found in a reliable source, neutral point of view would require it be included. For example, in a climate change article, information about the poor factual basis of climate change denial should be included. Fred _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>