It’s been ages ago (>5 years i think), i don’t even quite remember how it all went.
What’s irritating about wikipedia is that the rule against original research in the articles spills over and becomes attitude against any argumentation not based on appeal to authority. So you have the folks there, they are curious about this hormesis concept, maybe they are actually just curious, not some proponents / astroturf campaign. But they are not interested in trying to listen to any argument and think if it is correct or not themselves. I don’t know, maybe it’s an attempt to preserve own neutrality on issue. In any case it is incredibly irritating. It’s half-curiosity.
If you added those before and they were reverted, then you should be discussing it on Talk and going for consensus.
It’s been ages ago (>5 years i think), i don’t even quite remember how it all went.
What’s irritating about wikipedia is that the rule against original research in the articles spills over and becomes attitude against any argumentation not based on appeal to authority. So you have the folks there, they are curious about this hormesis concept, maybe they are actually just curious, not some proponents / astroturf campaign. But they are not interested in trying to listen to any argument and think if it is correct or not themselves. I don’t know, maybe it’s an attempt to preserve own neutrality on issue. In any case it is incredibly irritating. It’s half-curiosity.