Relata Refero wrote:
What is also frequently a concern is that material
is frequently added to articles based on scholarly resources or books that
are not online.
Material that is not online is just as valuable and important as
material that is. If you doubt the material look it up.
If the original addition is carefully worded to
closely
paraphrase a point in the secondary source, a copyeditor concerned about
style might well - and frequently does - come in and change that such that
it is no longer sufficiently faithful to the nuances in the source, since
the copyeditor does not have access to the source.
"Closely paraphrase" and "sufficiently faithful" are points of view
about a particular text. Close paraphrases intended to avoid a copyvio
can change the meaning of a passage entirely. How do you presume that
the copyeditor does not have access to the source? Whose nuance is correct?
Ec