Re:Marathon Editing Brings New Rigor to Wikipedia Physics
by DanBC on Saturday August 15, 2015 @03:18AM
(#10064625)
The correct approach is to fix the wording, not reject it completely.
It's not even that bad.
There have been problems with the speed of light article that required arbcom measures; edit wars with a lot of talk page and ANI discussion, with some bans for users.
It's not a surprise to me that edits to the speed of light article get reverted.
Re:Marathon Editing Brings New Rigor to Wikipedia Physics
by roghummal on Saturday August 15, 2015 @08:20AM
(#10065194)
In my experience (outside Wikipedia) it's easier to shoot something down than it is to fix it. There's a proxy effect where the thing you fixed becomes your problem even when your fix has nothing to do with the (potentially future) problem.
If this holds true for Wikipedia it'd make sense to see more rejections than fixes. Let the person submitting it fix it. It's their problem.
Recently, there are some tests<1> on the upper limit of speed of light. The test conducted by Zhang et. al showed that single photon still obeys speed limit which is the speed of light no matter in normal material or fast material. <1>Shanchao Zhang, J. F. Chen, Chang Liu, M. M. T. Loy, G. K. L. Wong, and Shengwang Du, "Optical precursor of a single photon," Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 243602 (2011).
And yes, it was reverted, with the comment "Poor wording. Perhaps someone with access to the source can cast this into proper English?". (As always with text-only communication, it's possible to read-in some snark, where none is intended). I don't get the impression that this little factoid would have greatly improved the article, but the poor wording would have degraded it.
The correct call I think.
Edit: formatting