Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Latvian divi/reply (10)

If your edits are correct and sourced, why should I (or anyone) revert them? I don't see why you think that I (or anyone) would correctly revert edits done in the way I suggest.

You don't "own" the reconstruction, but you "own" the idea, since it's your belief that this form is as good as PBS as it is as PB. Or have you read this stuff about *duwō somewhere else? And if so, why not cite it?

A wiki can be edited by anyone, but it should not contain false or misleading information -- or else, there would be no point in combatting vandalism. Vandals are also people who can and do edit; they are part of this "anyone can edit" that you mentioned; yet their edits are reverted, and rightfully so.

And that, because the main reason for a wiki (or, at least, I think, for this wiki) to exist is that it provides correct, accurate information. So, if I create a new page Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic/dūwo(n) and link it to the etymology section of , that would -- rightfully -- be reverted and undone, because there is no such reconstruction nor is there evidence to support it.

And the only way to differenciate this non-existing *dūwo(n) from a truly existing *duwō is... references.

If a source is incorrectly quoted, the change should be reverted. It is either vandalism or an incorrect addition, albeit well-meant. And that is why I do revert Latvian etymologies without sources. How does this go against the spirit of wiki communal work? Wiki does not mean "anything goes" -- it means "anyone can contribute" (as long as it is accurate, correct, etc.).

What it's beginning to look like to me is that these issues have never been addressed in a policy discussion. Perhaps this should be done?