I had a look through the added material. It seemed to lack a lot of sourcing and didn't really fit the tone of a summarising article. Sadly, I'd have to say its removal (pending discussion) was the right decision. I can absolutely appreciate the frustration of contributing to a field where publishing new or radical theories is met with huge resistance. But on the other hand Wikipedia is not really a place to right those wrongs (for what I hope is obvious reasons :)). There's really no good answer here: Wikipedia blurs the line between academic research and encyclopaedic coverage, to the extent that it is tempting to bring new material directly to Wikipedia. Tom

2012/10/26 John Jackson <strangetruther(a)gmail.com>om>: It's wikien-L and wikimedia-L; "l" as in "List", not as in "one" :) The first one is about the English Wikipedia and the second one is about the general Wikimedia movement, and very frequently about Wikipedia in general. You can find link to both of them here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo And yes, of course you can join. The Wikimedia movement tries to be open to everybody, and that includes its critics, as long as they are not tasteless. As a bit of personal advice, I have to say something brutally honest: The problem of amateurs/experts dynamics in Wikipedia is one that I care quite strongly about, and I would really like to see productive discussion about it. However, threats of retiring or deleting own contributions never help move such discussion forward. As much as I understand the feeling, expressing it this way simply doesn't work. Again, it's a pattern that repeated itself with academics from USA, Portugal, Israel, Russia and other countries, and from fields as diverse as Political Science, Education and Engineering. It would be much more useful to understand the current policies and practices, to try to identify particular flaws in them and to propose constructive changes. -- Amir