-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Delirium wrote:
They certainly don't look the same, unless the person "reviewing" the article utterly lacks any competence to review the article, in which case they should kindly refrain from doing so. Anyone who has even very basic competence knows what is an uncontroversial statement that appears in numerous textbooks in their field.
I don't agree with the expert-centric approach Larry Sangers advocates, but we don't have to have only people who have *no* idea what they're doing editing our articles either.
-Mark
We are talking about /readers/ here, not Wikipedia editors. If a /reader/ sees a particular unreferenced statement on Wikipedia, they do not know whether the statement is unreferenced because: a) Some idiot has made it up without any factual basis b) It is 'widely accepted as a fact'
Your 'people familiar with the field will recognise it as a well-known fact' argument doesn't really wash in this situation. The reason a person would be reading a Wikipedia article on a subject is because they _don't_ know enough about the subject. What may appear as a 'widely accepted fact' to someone writing a Wikipedia article on a subject may be nothing of the sort to an uninformed person seeking to use Wikipedia to expand his/her knowledge (which is, after all, what we're for).
Cynical