You have to ask yourself, who _are_ these "senior researchers", anyway? What sort of person sits around all day waiting for someone to make a change to an obscure page of Wikipedia, only to pounce on the offender (anonymously, of course). Since (to my knowledge), these people aren't getting paid, I can't imagine what sort of personality would find this sort of anonymous pouncing to be enjoyable or fulfilling. But then I am reminded that upwards of 33% of the East Germans willingly spied on the other 67% (probably the 33%, too!), and for apparently _no money, or any other consideration_ ! This sort of behavior _has_ to be genetic; else how else could such behavior be so widespread? I'm reminded of the librarian who looked extremely depressed & upset. When asked what the problem was, she (librarians were always "she" in those days) said "Someone took a book out today." "But I'm going to make sure that I get it back!" At 01:09 PM 6/4/2012, J J wrote:
You see, this is exactly where No Original Research falls flat on its face.
The required competency for checking Henry's math would pass as "doing research" to most Wikipedian authorities.
My own experience editing Wikipedia is similar to Henry's.
After trying, unsuccessfully, to remove some clearly bogus pseudo-science (clearly bogus by several standard textbooks) from a physics article, I cited anotherWikipediaarticle that (clearly and obviously to me) disagreed with the first.
I was told, by a "senior editor", that there was no way that they could enforce that articles be consistent with each other.
On June 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
à Just check the math, and if it is correct, allow it.