JAY JG said:
Some of
the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are
teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they
find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV
pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true
I assure you that it is. Any time you spot a POV pusher filling an
article with unverifiable tripe, just leave a message at [[User talk:
Tony Sidaway]] and you and I, we'll be that team. If there are two of
them, we'll get a third guy; and that way there's no way anybody will
have to breach 3RR.
Unless you're on vaction or something. I think systemic fixes are far
more reliable than "don't worry, I'll make sure this doesn't
happen"
assurances.
You and I are not the only editors on Wikipedia.
And in the example you gave, Charles has already given a good critique of
your claim that this would constitute "original research". There would in
any case be no need to revert in this case; simply edit the contentious
statement so that it is verifiably true and cite your sources. Then
everybody will know that you're right and you'll encounter no problems
persuading others to deal with this chap if he tries to replace the
verifiable statement with an unverifiable one.
Ah, if only things typically worked that way; you must be editing in an
entirely different area of Wikipedia than I do. In my experience other
editors rarely care to get involved in areas in which they have no interest
or expertise (if they notice the problem at all); instead the common
reaction is "well, these two guys are just edit-warring, and I don't know
who is right, so I'm not going to get worked up about it." As for the
example, it's true it was off the top of my head, and perhaps there are many
web sites and blogs that "support" that particular claim. A better example
would have been the many people who read the theory or opinion or argument
of a notable individual on a particular topic, well cited, and decide they
need to insert their own "rebuttal" of that person's views, on the grounds
that the cited views are completely wrong. Though I will repeatedly state
"you can't just make up your own arguments as to why this guy is wrong, you
have to cite others who rebut or disagree with this person", it typically
has little impact.
Jay.
Jay.