Dr. Connelley is now a "source", and not just a contributor. Despite repeated warnings, he has once again tried to use the authority of the Wikipedia to back up one of his pet opinions.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=SEPP&diff=0&oldid=0
<<SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone depletion]], making the clearly false assertion that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well- mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial>>
I can no longer consider William a regular contributor. He is an authority in his field, and so I think we should cite HIM as the source of the POV that there isn't any controversy about CFC mixing.
It's better than a reversion war, anyway.
Comments?
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I can no longer consider William a regular contributor. He is an authority in his field, and so I think we should cite HIM as the source of the POV that there isn't any controversy about CFC mixing.
It's better than a reversion war, anyway.
I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. Brittanica can brag about Albert Einstein writing physics articles etc; presumably it's preferable to have actual authorities contributing, rather than be an all-amateur production, and I hope we'll get more authorities to work on WP. A competent authority would of course understand that WP is a secondary source and that every sentence should have a reference backing it up.
As an casual onlooker to the dispute, I'd say you're not getting up early enough in the morning to make the case that Connolley is inserting personal POV. That's the hard part about disputing with authorities; they can usually fire back a dozen times in response to your one shot. Maybe better to recruit your own authorities to help directly, rather than being filled full of arrows every day, eh?
Stan