The only problem with Wikipedia is when people use it unthinkingly, just like any other source.

Also, stop arguing with the guy, and tell him he needs to provide sources, not arguments, for his definition.

I have to say I don't know enough about finance to interpret the correctness of his other edits directly. But he certainly seems to be an iconoclast.

You could bring it up at WikiProject Business and Economics if you can't be bothered yourself.

He's definitely styling himself as an iconoclast. Unfortunately, he's just wrong on more than a few things.

Thanks for pointing out the WikiProject page. I think I will bring it up there.

And thanks for putting that third opinion in there!

I do agree with your first post, grouse. I've had that opinion since I first used Wikipedia, but this was the first time I've seen destructive behavior first-hand so it was a little unsettling.

The worst thing about this behavior, is that at first glance it might seem totally reasonable to one who knows nothing about this subject. That is there are no tell-tale signs of vandalism or POV, which can frequently be detected without further research.

I dropped a note to a good friend of mine who also happens to be a Wikipedia admin asking if he couldn't just step in and make it quite obvious that "Retail Investor" is performing original research and not supporting his changes with facts.

Don't know if that's actually a way things work on WikiPedia, but I'm just trying to help.

I have been having a long and terrible back and forth with a particularly irritating soapbox guy on Wikipedia who is convinced that the American Library Association's main purpose on this earth is to sexualize children. I find that often dealing with people in a Wikipedia environment involves a few things

1. sources -- make sure they have them and they're what wikipedia defines as standard sources. In this case, my enemy wants to use certain web metrics that are not the standard ones to support his claim (mainly because other more standard metrics do not agree with his wacky conlusions)
2. NPOV -- the deal is neutrality, not balance. Many people with axes to grind try to include their own take on a subject in the interest of balance. Focus on neutral, it's not a newspaper.
3. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox -- if you find someone using it that way, you can get an admin involved and try to have a reasonnable discussion with the person who is causing all the trouble. At worst you may arrive at some good compromise, at best you may get them to stop editing articles they are basically wrestling into their own mold. Check the Opus Dei talk pages for a longstanding example of this

At any case, I feel for you mullacc. Feel free to chat more with me if you want some strategies for going through channels with this guy.

Also, make friends with other people editing that page, if there is a group of people who all keep on the same "hey quit doing that" agenda, it's easier to effect some change. In my case, there is no one else who agrees with or sides with the user I'm having trouble with, which weakens many of his arguments about his POV not being a soapbox of his alone.

More eyes, more eyes. That's the one thing that's more effective than anything else. More advice:

* Fill out your user page. A redlinked userpage always looks a little hinky, like you just signed up or are running away from another identity.

* Watchlist his user talk page, keep track of any other people warning him about his actions.

* Wait for him to screw up, then sit back and eat popcorn. It's really hard to be the point man, you're often better off not getting involved.

I added a more sources tag, but that won't likely bring too many people over. A note at the project would be better and more information than any other dispute resolution process.

If the editor is always relying on original research and injecting fringe opinion, ultimately that should lead to some sort of sanction, at worst an ArbCom hearing. But for now just try to get more people aware of him, a few people will pay attention to his stuff and he'll start to get pushback everywhere he edits.

Captaintripps: Admins don't actually have a whole lot more power than other editors. They do have more experience usually! It's always good to have more eyes, though.

I've been having a back-and-forth with a guy right now, who's killing my interest in editing.

Speaking of finance, Gresham's law applies to wikipedia. In spades.

I have been having a long and terrible back and forth with a particularly irritating soapbox guy on Wikipedia who is convinced that the American Library Association's main purpose on this earth is to sexualize children.

What?!

Thanks for all the input.

If anyone is still following this, here's the post I made to the relevant WikiProjects page.

What?!

You can read about it here.

Thanks for the link, jessamyn, and I'm glad grouse weighed in.

I can only hope the ALA doesn't cave into pressure from people like Schlessinger and LAEC.