Surely a tool is useful for a minimum of 1 useful task?
My hypothesis is that our 'special needs' member displays the cardinal symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. I make mistakes on an almost daily basis but thankfully people simply correct me, I become more able and I thank them for correcting me. We ALL make mistakes. It's when someone seems unable to accept that they, like everyone else, makes mistakes, there is a problem.
While the 'special needs' member remained just spouting lie after lie after lie in this thread, nobody else is harmed. But when they confidently cite Wiki as a VALID SOURCE (allow me a brief hiatus while I go through a series of laughs and groans), THEN we have an issue.
Who KNOWS who puts together those Wiki pages. All I know is that many references are spurious.
In fact, I was so dubious about Wiki that I introduced the term 'fundamentalist atheist' to the Wiki page on atheism with 2 spurious references to book by Hitchens (including spurious page, paragraph, line) and it took over 2½ years for anybody to change it. So, if anyone recalls those heated 'fundamentalist atheist' on-line debates, I put my hand up. In my defence, I wanted to test just how much Wiki was to be trusted...
So if nothing else, I really do put in some effort on my 'homework'. I should really have altered a number of pages to get statistical data but was concerned that incorrect data can lead to harm. I thought it most unlikely that a subtle alteration of a Wiki page on atheism would cause harm...
But it really DID seem to produce much heated discussion including people stating 'well it says in Wiki...' and I was honestly surprised that NOBODY ever checked the reference.
So, consider how trustworthy it IS. If I can add such a thing and NO automatic checking takes place, think of what I COULD have done. In fact, if I was someone so in need of ALWAYS being RIGHT no matter the cost? I could alter a Wiki page, argue my case referencing Wiki, win and then change it back... In fact, who knows if this actually happens? I HAVE seen changes rolled back just hours later... but when I looked, those were unreferenced lies... to a Wikipedian, if there is a reference then it's TRUE!
But whatever the case, unless it's a peer-reviewed article and importantly one could replicate the experiment, how much CAN it be trusted.
So please forgive me anyone who relied on my dodgy statement on that Wiki page which I accept was unethical. BUT it was done for a good reason and I could find no other way to test my theory.
I have to admit sekio, your simple polarimetry guide SHOULD be of great value as their are an increasing number of chiral drugs. I'm interested to see if anyone tests for esketamine. BTW it was F&B who had samples of esketamine and arketamine.... like 18 years ago (or so). I've had labs perform polarimetry tests and they limited themselves to 4 specific frequencies of light (well, radiation - I don't think they were in the visible light range).