Is getting stranger. One particularly belligerent editor wants to delete the introduction altogether and replace it with a selection of different citations on the nature of philosophy. I reply here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ed_introductionthat in no other of the flagship articles like history, politics &c is this approach used. His argument, which is actually more sensible, is essentially that any synthesis or balance between sources is original research, and that Wikipedia cannot possibly do better than a published, peer-reviewed source. I'm beginning to see where he is coming from. Quite.
[edit] You are going to ask, why have I come back to this house of horror when I am mad too, and when I said I wouldn't. The answer is, it's like those horror movies or dreams where the actor sees the door, and you think 'no, don't open the door, don't open it'. You know what is inside is going to invovle something very scary, or probably something much worse like axe-murderers, disembowellment, torture, supernatural creepy things. But, no, the guy/woman goes inside. Why are human beings so foolish?
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: