> My guess is that it happens when people dive in to fix something that they "know" is wrong, and feel strongly about - and then get upset when it's reverted because they provided no evidence.
I think that it is more interesting that the article suggests that this is (at least partially) the result of an increase in paid editing:
"What changed in his absence, Wood says, is that employees of public-relations firms began to understand the value of a Wikipedia page, and tried going in to make edits themselves, with little regard for the site’s standards. The result was that the burden of proof became even heavier on newcomers, and, Wood says, even valid information was getting rejected out of hand by seasoned editors."
This is a false argument because the number of PR edits is so small in comparison to the total number of edits. The culture is toxic, period. See my other post on this thread.
I think that it is more interesting that the article suggests that this is (at least partially) the result of an increase in paid editing:
"What changed in his absence, Wood says, is that employees of public-relations firms began to understand the value of a Wikipedia page, and tried going in to make edits themselves, with little regard for the site’s standards. The result was that the burden of proof became even heavier on newcomers, and, Wood says, even valid information was getting rejected out of hand by seasoned editors."