On 18/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/18/07 8:09 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Were the grounds really pure bullshit?
In their opinions, and, in some of the cases, mine - yes the grounds were bullshit. Because, the grounds for disagreement by the disputing editors were based on popular notions of the subject and self-help nonsense.
If the grounds were bullshit then the articles should be reverted back to the experts version. If the experts had a valid cite then there's no excuse. If they didn't then it's much more arguable.
In all cases here we are talking about the subjects of human behavior and other very basic psychosocial concepts. I will not be more specific about the Articles in question so as not to single-out any specific editor. But, in each case, the objections they had were based upon "that's not what I learned" and other pop-psych nonsense. How do you deal with that without running into the 3RR?
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Marc