Robert wrote:
In theory, yes. In practice, no. On alternative
medicine
articles we had a group of POV warriors (such as Mr.
Natural Health) making non-stop reversions, deleting
mention of critical studies and peer-reviewed data. Yet
very few people with a background in medicine or science
were willing to edit these articles, as they did not want
to put up with the harassment.
I think this is likely to become less of a problem in the future, due to
some arbitration changes. Initially, the idea was that the arbitration
committee had a fairly weak mandate, and so would only act if the
evidence was overwhelming and there was a strong case to be made. This
is a high threshold and takes time, both to sort through the evidence
and to actually sit down and write a court-style "opinion of the
committee". In the meantime, people like MNH and Irismeister and so on
went around reverting and troublemaking like mad until they were finally
banned.
Rather recently, the committee's started issuing temporary injunctions
more quickly with a lower threshold of evidence and explanation. So if
it seems likely that someone ought to be banned, we just go ahead and do
it temporarily, and then consider at length once that's been done.
-Mark