Quote:
Originally Posted by MU2Driver
I understand that a literal reading of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy could be interpreted that way, but it also says "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."
Using this example, who else other than a brother of SAE would have both the subject matter expertise and also the time and inclination to edit the SAE page? It's not a perfect system, which is why most people take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. The options in most cases would seem to be either uninformed editors or editors with a bias against the subject of the article.
|
I agree, and I also don't understand the motivation to get involved in a self-admitted "edit war" with someone over whether the appropriate terminology for the chapter at OU is "closed," "inactive," "disbanded," or whatever when one don't personally have the knowledge of the correct terminology and when one has to go to a message board in order to get the information. GC isn't what I would consider a reliable academic source. If one isn't a subject matter expert, then leave it to the subject matter experts. It's wikipedia, not life or death.
That being said, I also don't understand the motivation for several GCers to do and type things they do and type in the name of "helping," but to each his or her own.