yhwx said:
If you excerpted Wikipedia, then that is the source.
No, it isn’t. The information in the opening paragraph that I quoted is all included in the sources that they cited. There is no “original research” included.
Wikipedia editors can interpolate the primary sources however they feel fit, since all writing is open to interpretation.
No, it doesn’t work that way. If you write something that doesn’t reflect the source you sited, it can be removed because it is considered “original research”, and interpolation is considered “synthesis”, and is also against policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
Do you believe the use of the word “decimated” to destroy a large part of something rather than to kill one out of every ten people to be a misapplication?
It depends on when it was said. Correctness of an application is relative to what’s correct at the time that it was applied. Words in the English language acquire definitions based on usage, with extra weight given to notable usage, as I mentioned in my previous post.
It has, in some parts of the Internet.
“Some parts of the internet” is meaningless. It takes more than some misapplications here and there by nobodies to establish a new sense of a term.
Gosh, you really go on about Wesley Crusher a lot.
And you ignore it a lot, due to special pleading, which is a fallacy.