On Sources

Wikipedia on this topic we've been fighting over: "Expertise
On many scientific, technical or social problems, different points of view may be held by different experts. This is especially the case, for instance, in areas of conjecture (e.g. estimating the future importance of global warming). Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works

*whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones

*whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms

*whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims"