Steven-
I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community
vote. We all
come to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people know
a lot about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux, and so
on. We also all come here to learn things we do not know. I do not
really understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I should vote on
whether content is accurate or not? I do not know the physics
literature -- you really think I can vote on the repute of a given source?
You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not
interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on
whether this or that study result should be included in an article about
it. This does not seem very likely to me. Moreover, I am strictly in
favor of a process whereby all arguments from all sides *must* be
properly summarized before a binding vote can take place, so that anyone
who has an interest and a basic understanding can quickly get an
overview of what the arguments are.
Furthermore, in many disputes, there will be two or more sides from
different fields of knowledge. For example, a debate might rage about
whether [[quantum physics]] should include a link to [[postmodernism]].
Should that debate be limited strictly to physicists? Should a debate
about the Sokal affair be limited to postmodernists?
Wikipedia has always been based on the idea that you can trust
reasonable people to do the right thing, and that the unreasonable ones
will be a minority that we can deal with. I think that principle should
be applied here as well.
Erik