NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)
Article Images
slimvirgin at gmail.com
slimvirgin at gmail.com
Fri Dec 10 22:38:08 UTC 2004
More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list
Fri Dec 10 22:38:08 UTC 2004
- Previous message: NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)
- Next message: NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi everyone, this is my first post. I've been reading the archives about NPOV and "no original research" with interest, as I feel they're the backbone of Wikipedia. It seems to me that, taken together, they provide a solid policy base, with no inherent contradiction. NPOV only refers to Auntie Gertie's views on relativity if those views have been published in a reputable, and for academic subjects this means peer-reviewed, journal. The same goes for non-academic subjects. The views must have been published in a reputable newspaper or other publisher, where articles go through a system comparable to peer review by being checked by writers/journalists, editors, lawyers (or, at least, they're supposed to be). I feel there will be very examples where NPOV and "no original research" taken together will not solve an issue; and editors should provide references whenever they can so that readers can check for themselves that the "no original research" principle was adhered to. Requiring editors to get in the habit of providing references seems to me to be the key. Slim
- Previous message: NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)
- Next message: NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list