Relata Refero wrote:
What is also frequently a concern is that material is frequently added to articles based on scholarly resources or books that are not online.
Material that is not online is just as valuable and important as material that is. If you doubt the material look it up.
If the original addition is carefully worded to closely paraphrase a point in the secondary source, a copyeditor concerned about style might well - and frequently does - come in and change that such that it is no longer sufficiently faithful to the nuances in the source, since the copyeditor does not have access to the source.
"Closely paraphrase" and "sufficiently faithful" are points of view about a particular text. Close paraphrases intended to avoid a copyvio can change the meaning of a passage entirely. How do you presume that the copyeditor does not have access to the source? Whose nuance is correct?
Ec