Sorry, I misremembered, and then managed to not clue in when the Google pointed me to the sarin attack articles. Anyway - the point is still, that even as a Western European-descended person I can see that terror attacks are not the exclusive domain of Islam based cults.

Your goggles are on too tight... you don't have to look very far back in time to find the IRA and other Christian groups doing their thing. Remember also the Tokyo ricin attacks? That was some local cult. How about David Koresh and Jim Jones?

If this is done, then also put the moderation history behind a clickthrough access such that you have to be logged in AND select the access button in order to see the moderators. In this way, the folks who reviewed my moderation history can be known to me... if abuse starts you ought to be able to see who's been looking you up.

I remember watching the launch and aftermath on the Dinnie's Den (the campus bar) big screen TV. Thinking back now, the weeks immediately following included an off-colour lost-and-found ad in the campus newspaper, which was then turned into an awesome (but still inappropriate) prank on its editors by some students with whom I may or may not have been associated.

That's not so bad. You need to read it as The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit.

"the well off" and "adventurous" refer to people. "suborbital jaunts" is what they'd be taking part in.

It's a running joke around our office. More seriously, though, it's a good reminder to write code that is testable, or else some SQA team is going to unleash stuff like this for real.

For those not enlightened: The Github repository

Yeah, I recall getting similar feedback from others at the time (regarding this particular editor).

I understand the system and the reason for preferring summaries of "reliable sources" over "independent truth", but it was (and is) really frustrating that this particular guy was absolutely against making any changes to the article largely because it had achieved "featured article" status at some point, under his purview. It was, in fact, that FA status that made Tiger folks pay attention to the article and realize it was full of errors. The editor would not accept any sources (in popular press or otherwise) other than the ones he'd decided were "most reliable", which essentially makes it un-fixable within the Wikipedia rules.

Point taken. The issue with the particular page I have a vested interest in, is that it mostly concerns hard facts for which there is documentation in the form of build records, inter-company correspondence, as well as the physical evidence of features on cars that I've seen, touched, and owned. For a variety of reasons, the authors of the books used as reference on the Wiki page did not have access to all the documentation that is now known to exist, at the time they published their books; but, due to the arcane machinations of Wikipedia, even those authors are not currently able to refute themselves in the eyes of the editors and get the pages fixed... evidently the only "authority" are the Wikipedia editors, which is just as wrong.

Nope, I was just going by the continuous barrage of give-to-us popups.

In case you haven't seen it yet: See Comet Catalina tomorrow morning before dawn

I'd post this as a story but it would probably go front-page on the 2nd.

Would have been helpful to post this, um, yesterday?

I understand the Wikipedia use of the word "reliable" and it's unfortunate they adopted an approach where an oft-repeated story by a coffee-table-book author can obliterate facts that were learned only through years of careful research by niche enthusiasts.

If Jimmy had created a way for expert information to be included (with appropriate justification from non-mainstream references), rather than just depending on regurgitated mainstream dreck, then Wikipedia would not be the lowest common denominator that it is, and maybe he would not have such a hard time getting donations to keep it going.

The problem is that "reliable" is only as good as the background knowledge of the editor on the particular topic being discussed, and his/her willingness to be objective in the light of new information.

I completely appreciate the need to vet any contribution, but the system puts too much power in the hands of the established editor, to reject the addition of new references that may provide a counter viewpoint to what is currently on the page. Even a new analysis of the merits of the posted references (eg. saying "I added up all the production numbers posted by references X, Y, and Z, and I can arrive at a different conclusion from what is posted"), can be disallowed as being independent research, where in fact it is exactly the same process that the original editor used.