Anyone tried amending the Wikipedia entry?

[Snow Leopard]

I have heard that if you change something more that 3 times in 1 day you are banned from widipedia. So:

You correct it. (1)
Idiot changes it back. (1)

You correct it (2).
Idiot changes it back. (2)

You correct it. (3)
Idiot changes it back. (3)

You correct it. (4) Opps, You're banned.
Eventually, everyone here would be banned.

It's a temporary ban at first and you are warned about a "edit war", with messaging or a note on your user page first. You are meant to refer to any controversial edits to a discussion, eg if someone adds something questionable, the editors will normally revert it and then expect a discussion before anything is added.

The same works in reverse, eg Doc James* wanted to add a non-evidence-based statement that exercise therapy does no harm, but some people contested it stating that the Cochrane study he referenced explicitly stated there was not enough evidence to conclude either way. This is why there is a weird compromise statement now, "In a systematic review of exercise therapy, no evidence of serious adverse effects was found; however data was insufficient to form a conclusion."

*He certainly should know better than to add statements that are not evidence based, but you know how power goes to people's heads.

 

[Alvin2]

I didn't read the whole thread but some editing can probably be pulled off, cite sources and only one edit of a specific point every now and then.
Global editing, edit warring, severe disagreements and one person making multiple changes will attract attention. Subtlety and patience are the keys

 

[Neunistiva]

Ok.
But if the CDC no longer list CBT or GET as treatment

The problem is that it does, and Doc James knows this

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887411125192708097