Talk:Resource-based view/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Resource-based view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why let it go?
On Jan 9,2007 a new and inactive editor added 14000 characters to the article. None of it included proper references. It was all footnoted properly, leading me to believe that it was an academic paper cut-n-pasted into the article. I could find no other trace of it online. There are fifteen mirror copies, though. As time has gone by, some of those footnotes have become references. Because we are talking about printed sources, I'm willing to bet they were almost plagiarized.
In my opinion, this article is not an encyclopedia entry, but a handy resource for people writing college papers. My suggested solution is to roll it back to Dec 27, 2006. If there is valuable stuff from the last ten years, an editor can look in the history, fix it, and put it back in. Otherwise, let it go. Rhadow (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)