Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
Nor to me. But this is one of the problems. Most of us aren't
interested in pedophilia. Pedophiles are. Let's hold a vote on what
the pedophilia articles should so, a vote on which references are valid,
and see what happens.
Instead what we should do is use serious judgment to determine how to
find out which references are valid, and rely on those judgments. We
can consult with psychologists and sociologists and get an idea of
whether or not a particular user is acting in good faith or just citing
crackpot sources to push a POV.
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.
Indeed, I think that no one really questions this. The real question is
whether a formal voting process is the right way to deal with it.
--Jimbo