Oh, my bad. I was confused by the "Honors credits" thing. I didn't go to high school and in my college they didn't have that sort of thing, so I assumed that it was a high school thing like turning a regular class into an AP class.

Also, as for the changes that were "accepted" - the main article has now been reverted to the student's version since this article was posted. If I had to guess, I'd say it'll be re-reverted back to its original state shortly, then temporarily semi-protected if it starts an edit war. It's quite likely that this will spur a bunch of additional attention which will cause the student's changes to be refactored into something that the previous editors would find acceptable, and much of the student's research will be incorporated into the page.

> this will spur a bunch of additional attention which will cause the student's changes to be refactored into something that the previous editors would find acceptable, and much of the student's research will be incorporated into the page.

So, maybe the blog post isn't such a bad thing after all?

It's not a bad thing for this specific article, no, but if going to the press becomes a dispute resolution strategy, that'd certainly be a bad thing for the health of Wikipedia as a whole.

That said, I don't think the blog post author did anything wrong or anything. Her experience sounds like it could have been a frustrating one. I just don't particularly believe the general conclusions that are quick to be drawn from these one-off experiences about the health of Wikipedia and its viability as an encyclopedia.

Perhaps we just need a better method of dispute resolution on wikipedia - something like a button on the page. It's not always obvious to newbies how to get other editors involved when there is a content dispute between two editors.