Many times I have seen well written, pertinent articles that have often mentioned the controversy of an theory , whereas some other encyclopedias treat what are really just theories as fact. Then later on I have seen the same article re-written by corporate disinformation agent or someone an agenda and the article has lost its impartiality. So I was thinking that articles could be like reviews on IMDB where if someone want to write another review , they can do so but leave the original alone. This way corporate disinformation agents can be exposed for what they are.
encyclopedias and the like are what you call "secondary" sources .. actual scientific papers and such are primary sources and if an article doesn't cite its sources then it loses much credibility
Have you any e.g's of both? Most articles I read acknowledge if something is disputed. It sounds like something you believe should be a theory is being written up more as a fact or not disputed. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
1.There was an article on the Pritikin diet. Originally it said that it has lost popularity because people found it ineffective.Last time I looked at the article it read like an advertorial. 2. Once saturated fat mentioned the controversy of studies not differentiating between trans fat and saturated fat. Later on it read like saturated fat to be poison. Just looked at it and looks rather confused.
I can see what you mean about the diet. The edits look a bit too complicated to go through. Go change them. I'm not sure your idea would work.
