It's hard - at least for me - to find out why a certain edit was removed. Those diff-comparison and history buttons aren't useful enough to me. May be "Reference or Citation" is needed. But this is not applicable all the time. "Most of the Egyptians eat foul (beans) in breakfast", this is a fact, but can you really find me a book that states such fact!? Arabs prefer to use Latin letters and numbers to write Arabic text on devices that doesn't support Arabic, and in Egypt they call it FrancoArab. Now give me a book that statues such fact. Arabs use the word "bedan" in the same way English people use the word "bollocks". Now, go get me books or articles - that by the way. has to be non-blogs - that states such facts!
Aren't wiki's supposed to be non-authoritative systems!? And Wikipedia is too authoritative for my taste. Call me an anarchist if you want, but I like what this guy - who is also not going to contribute to Wikipedia any more - wrote in his blog:
It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we need some rules to organize our work. Third, we make the rules really complicated to fit every corner case. Fourth, we completely forget the goal of those rules and we apply them blindly for the sake of it. Fifth, we punish or kill those who don't follow the rules as strictly as we do.
Finally, someone might argue, Wikipedia is working this way, and it's success is an enough proof that whether I like it or not this is the best way to make it work, and I have to deal with it. OK, fine, may be their current rule set are the super-perfect system out there, but I don't care, I will just stop wasting my time and do edits there while knowing that they will be removed the next day.
