Not really For one thing being on the cutting edge means you re on the wrong side of the knife For the second that s actually how Wikipedia works We always follow often at a good distance behind what RS say We never lead the way with new information including scientific discoveries Good science is conservative and so is Barrett and QW When new medical knowledge is established QW articles get updated Some which are outdated may not even exist anymore or they have been revised to include new data That s the proper way to do things If QW were to trumpet new knowledge too quickly they would often end up having to backtrack because most new knowledge ends up being a false lead that proves to be a disappointment That s exactly what quacks do and make money by selling such poorly supported new knowledge Barrett knows better than to do that