Lately, I noticed a torrent of unsourced and very questionable modifications to the lead sentence of the Statistical significance page. I suspect there will be more to come. I don't have it in me to continue to monitor that page carefully or to engage in extensive discussions with other editors about modifying the lead. Besides, I am supposed to be retired from Wikipedia. But I am worried about these latest edits. They don't seemed to be well-thought out or to be well-sourced. And if editors can just modify pages without supporting their edits with reliable sources, then I am afraid all the hard work on that page will be for nothing and it will revert back to its chaotic history, where it just accumulates all sorts of unsourced misinformation and hearsay. In the end, it is the general reader that suffers. But if there's anyone I think who should take a lead in all off this, it is you. You have the knowledge and the sources to back it up. Plus, you're diligent. As long as you insist that editors abide by WP's policy of needing reliable sources to verify information, you should be fine. So if you have the time to watch the page and be involved in long discussions, great. If not, sigh. I just hope whoever is reading that page is also reading something else other than Wikipedia. danielkueh ( talk) 07:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Lately, I noticed a torrent of unsourced and very questionable modifications to the lead sentence of the Statistical significance page. I suspect there will be more to come. I don't have it in me to continue to monitor that page carefully or to engage in extensive discussions with other editors about modifying the lead. Besides, I am supposed to be retired from Wikipedia. But I am worried about these latest edits. They don't seemed to be well-thought out or to be well-sourced. And if editors can just modify pages without supporting their edits with reliable sources, then I am afraid all the hard work on that page will be for nothing and it will revert back to its chaotic history, where it just accumulates all sorts of unsourced misinformation and hearsay. In the end, it is the general reader that suffers. But if there's anyone I think who should take a lead in all off this, it is you. You have the knowledge and the sources to back it up. Plus, you're diligent. As long as you insist that editors abide by WP's policy of needing reliable sources to verify information, you should be fine. So if you have the time to watch the page and be involved in long discussions, great. If not, sigh. I just hope whoever is reading that page is also reading something else other than Wikipedia. danielkueh ( talk) 07:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)