On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Steve Witham wrote:
From: Dave Dyer <ddyer@real-me.net> Wiki is infested with content nazis who are intent on enforcing "the rules".
You don't need to put quotes around it, there really are a few rules of Wikipedia, and no-original-research is one of them. I think it's a little rude that nobody told Henry why they were reverting his edit, but that's the attitude a lot of open-source projects have: we'd love you to contribute, but take it on yourself to learn the rules first.
Just to be clear, the 'history' tab on the article shows who (one person: Duoduoduo) undid the inclusion of Henry's link and why: "rv as per WP:ELNO -- not an authoritative source" (the first reversion); "rv again, not an authoritative source. WP:BRD: you could take it to the article's talk page and convince others to support you" (the second reversion). I'm not sure that I understand the "no-original-research" angle. In 2008, I corrected the Wikipedia birth year of baseball-player Irvin 'Kaiser' Wilhelm. In 2010 it was reverted by someone who pointed to 'baseball-reference.com'. In 2011 I re-corrected the reversion but this time I added a reference link to what essentially constitutes 'original research' hosted on my personal domain. So far, it has survived. But it should/must survive because, unlike mainstream sources, my version is correct. ;)