It's a commonly aired complaint because it's true. It's interesting you immediately blame the editor for fixing something "they feel strongly about but have no

It's a commonly aired complaint because it's true. It's interesting you immediately blame the editor for fixing something "they feel strongly about but have no evidence". What if he did have well-sourced information? Why do you question his temperament? Why should that be a requirement to add information to a site? There are examples on probably every page of Wikipedia (ie millions of examples) of well-sourced information that is censored. Biased pages are the standard, not the exception. Editors are routinely harassed on both contentious and non-contentious topics, just ask any woman using the system. I was harassed online and offline for well over a year for trying to add completely factual and well-sourced information to the site. I was targeted by one of the site's most famous admins because I dared challenge one of the many ambiguously worded policies on the site. During that process I learned a lot about Wikipedia's culture and I realized that on Wikipedia "might is right' and only the most aggressive and fanatical editors survive. If you're not prepared to fight then you won't get anywhere. BTW, any Wikipedia editor knows your suggestion to post suggestions to the talk page is completely useless. Most people simply don't want the hassle, and to be honest, the fact that new editors are scared off so quickly probably does them a favor. Why waste months trying to get factual information onto the site when faced with a bunch of opponents who will use very wiki rule available to deny you, bend the rules when necessary, and will bully and harass you? It's not worth it. But while that may entrench the power of the people who survive, it's no good for the long term future of the project. So please stop trying to blame the newcomers. Blame the toxic culture and the crap software that it is built upon. Maybe then it can perhaps be fixed.