, , , , , , , , ,

  • Oppose basically per Cas Liber – DYK is a great incentive to create new articles, and we want to encourage those. Even if a DYK fails, in most cases we still end up with a new article or an expanded one. Nothing horribly wrong with that, no? Taylor Trescott – my talk + my edits 01:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But we’re not wining up with new or expanded articles; we’re winding up with bad science.

And, bad science, according to en.Wikipedia, fails verifiability. If it’s wrong, it’s not verifiable. If you misunderstood or could not read the source and just copied and pasted jargon to  create nonsense, then, you don’t wind up with a “new article.”

By en.Wikipedia’s definitions, you’ve just wound up with vandalism.