On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Ian, All,
"Ian Woollard"
<ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/5/25 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<abd(a)lomaxdesign.com>om>:
I've seen
articles where text is added, sources are added, then someone takes
it out because, perhaps, they say it is unbalanced,
I essentially always revert those kinds of edits.
As a rule, adding material is the way to create balance; I'm not sure
I've ever seen an example where removal of sourced material for
balance is correct, but it could theoretically happen. There probably
should be a bot that reverts all edits that remove material with
references, with the subject line 'pov' (I'm not kidding).
I hope you are kidding, or at least exaggerating.
In typical focus areas of science there can be thousands of papers on this topic in a
year. Adding something from a single paper, which isn't a review paper or from a
acknowledged authority in the area, almost always will be putting things out of
perspective.
And that is counting peer reviewed papers only. Extending the view to cranks, you get
into the "Einstein was wrong!!!1111eleven" realm, which also can provide pretty
looking references, e.g. the "Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics" (Anybody
interested in co-founding the "Journal of Ptolemian Astronomy"?). Should we
leave such statements in every article related to Relativity Theory?
And every article stating dates before 6000 B.C. can potentially get infected with a
wellsourced statement of the hypothetical nature of anything existing at that time, and a
comparative treatment of the scriptures' wisdom about the topic.
Regards,
Peter
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen:
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, a bot would make that quite nice.
The Earth is flat!<ref>Because I Said So, A. Crank. May 2008. Vanity
Publications.</ref>
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.