Ian, All,
"Ian Woollard" ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/25 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com:
I've seen articles where text is added, sources are added, then someone takes it out because, perhaps, they say it is unbalanced,
I essentially always revert those kinds of edits.
As a rule, adding material is the way to create balance; I'm not sure I've ever seen an example where removal of sourced material for balance is correct, but it could theoretically happen. There probably should be a bot that reverts all edits that remove material with references, with the subject line 'pov' (I'm not kidding).
I hope you are kidding, or at least exaggerating.
In typical focus areas of science there can be thousands of papers on this topic in a year. Adding something from a single paper, which isn't a review paper or from a acknowledged authority in the area, almost always will be putting things out of perspective.
And that is counting peer reviewed papers only. Extending the view to cranks, you get into the "Einstein was wrong!!!1111eleven" realm, which also can provide pretty looking references, e.g. the "Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics" (Anybody interested in co-founding the "Journal of Ptolemian Astronomy"?). Should we leave such statements in every article related to Relativity Theory?
And every article stating dates before 6000 B.C. can potentially get infected with a wellsourced statement of the hypothetical nature of anything existing at that time, and a comparative treatment of the scriptures' wisdom about the topic.
Regards, Peter