4 ms·

Found some questionable edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=804694134&oldid=804694104 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=804694134&oldid=80

• bpicolo 9y ago
  Those diffs actually seem solid. Words like "bogus" and "baseless" don't make for objective articles.
  • norikki 9y ago
    True. But you shouldnt remove words from the headlines of an article being cited.
• golergka 9y ago
  These are actually quite good edits. In the original versions of these articles, all the words being removed were not supported by any citation or anything else - so, while it's quite possible these adjectives were true (as I personally believe so), it's better to remove them unless they can be backed up.
  • Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    Actually the language comes directly from the source, which was cited when the edits were reverted by another editor. Indicating that a claim is refuted is, imo, an important detail to include.
    • Danihan 9y ago
      Yeah sources need to be objective as well, not read like op-ed pieces.