But I'm not commenting on that aspect of the argument. I'm simply pointing out that the author can not be wholly objective on the particular point I quoted.
Well for a start, I didn't downvote you - just replied.
I think if you take your aspect of the argument to it's logical conclusion no one that has any reason to be editing a wikipedia page on a given subject can be wholly objective on that same subject.
Anything I know enough to comment on, I probably have a biased view on.
For example I have no biased view on the Greek/Turkish ownership dispute of Cyprus, but that's because I know nothing about it.
Which all just demonstrates yet another flaw in Wikipedia; why he put that resource on such a pedestal all the time, I don't know.
Without a doubt you could give some great insights and a lot of useful information. But to answer your question; No, you alone could not write an objective encyclopedia article on the subject.
Ok, so if a bunch of folks write about a given scientist - 2 being friends of the subject, the rest not - then by this logic the resultant copy they create as a collective should be objective. Great, problem solved.
Where did I suggest they shouldn't be writing about it? All I said was alone a single source with a biased outlook can't offer an objective view.
"Citizendium hadn't fell apart"? Hyperbole in the extreme.
