>>13402071>>13402063The only reason I pointed out the mistake is I read over the revision history. I was directly thinking about how I was personally unqualified to interpret a revision history. There really is no way to indicate that RanomLeaf is a shill without a large amount of other context discovered through participation in or analysis of Wikipedia itself. Neither of these have I ever done. I was pondering over their supposed reasons for modification and I was about to post quite an analysis of Wikipedia on here. Then I read the "shill" comment.
Again, there really is no way to prove it is a shill. It is just serendipitous that the exact challenge Wikipedia faces - quite ineffectively, I might add - is directly seen so shortly after I started thinking about those challenges.
I wouldn't call the anon a shill, people tend to think in implicate terms, and when the implication is closed then the thought is complete. I can't even blame him, I didn't thoroughly vet his link to verify there wasn't indeed a second study by that group in 1990.
Nor did I check while the link may refer to the same study as the Wikipedia link, it may not be the exact link they used. All of this stuff is ridden with implicit context, thinking this person was looking at the same thing I was looking at.
I am very disheartened by Wikipedia after my musings for the last hour. Not just Wikipedia as a thing itself, but the mission of it is uniquely impossible. That is a different point though and I will be polishing it before sharing it, but I imagine there are quite a few others against Wikipedia.
