User blog comment:BastionMonk/Dinosaur information/@comment-1314609-20120202151906

I do understand why this would seem a nice idea. Personally, I think it is fine to do this, as long as a clear distinction between real Palaeontological facts which are evidence supported, and what is the JP media perspective on all matters in question. I for one cannot stand incoherent and heavily opinionated waste of space edits, which are clearly unsupported in terms of evidence and so on. I edit pages with my own personal academic knowledge; but this is not to say a little wiki research is a crime. But you can tell the editors that rely on 'ye olde copy and paste'. At very least write it in your own words, but even then coherently, clearly and in a well informed manner. Seek always to bring a bit of grammatical 'class' to a wikia - mature prose and well written pages should be seen as points of pride and a sign of a well crafted and well curated information resource. To dilute pages with a straight column of Palaeo-data is as biased and unfair as to just compile a list of often fanciful or distorted JP media information. Compromise is often the best way to go on and achieve a greater state of being. Why not divide pages into subheadings that firstly address the Palaeontological factuality, as so to establish the most or best possible realistic interpretation of the animal or other subject in question, and then address the JP data. I think this is sensible.