I should add a response on this point: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact > professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a > priori he should automatically have been treated that way before the > situation was clarified. Should we declare that "Assume Good Faith" is now a dead letter? > By far the majority of people who come up and "buck the system" or > challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or > people with an agenda. To me the interesting thing is that this author did not "buck the system." It seems clear he attempted to learn the system and abide by the system's rules. If someone goes to the trouble he went to, getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, then citing it in his editing of the Wikipedia article, what else could he have done, precisely? If we pass over this and classify it as an anomaly, then I think the very best thing that can be said is that this is a missed opportunity to review UNDUE specifically, and, more generally, the problem of policy ambiguity and complexity as a barrier to entry for new, knowledgeable, good-faith editors. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
