Erik Moeller wrote:
You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on whether this or that study result should be included in an article about it. This does not seem very likely to me.
Nor to me. But this is one of the problems. Most of us aren't interested in pedophilia. Pedophiles are. Let's hold a vote on what the pedophilia articles should so, a vote on which references are valid, and see what happens.
Instead what we should do is use serious judgment to determine how to find out which references are valid, and rely on those judgments. We can consult with psychologists and sociologists and get an idea of whether or not a particular user is acting in good faith or just citing crackpot sources to push a POV.
Wikipedia has always been based on the idea that you can trust reasonable people to do the right thing, and that the unreasonable ones will be a minority that we can deal with. I think that principle should be applied here as well.
Indeed, I think that no one really questions this. The real question is whether a formal voting process is the right way to deal with it.
--Jimbo