Ornlu quoted the RendoRag misquoting him: "For example, Dome lighting, is a simulation of global illumination. Dome Lighting should not be confused with radiosity because it is not the same thing, yet a similar effect can be created through the use of light domes." Now this one is curious. The 'radiosity' remark is such a substantial addition to what Ornlu appears to have provided that it's hard not to conclude that they ran the article by an independent 3D techie. If so, it either makes a mockery of the notion that they "contact writers for verification of technical details" - or they did in this case and the author failed to provide them with such. Whichever, the final result (as quoted by Ornlu) is an abomination. The 'radiosity' addition was made possibly in an attempt to correct a technical error in what Ornlu wrote: "For example, dome lighting (the simulation of global illumination), can be created through the use of spherical arrays of omni-lights." Let's be clear here - "global illumination" is a specific 3D term used to describe compound render techniques that must take into account all aspects of lighting in a scene (diffusion, reflection, specularity, transmission, caustics, colour bleeding, etc, etc). Global illumination cannot be simulated merely by dome lighting; and nor is dome lighting a render process designed to be such a simulation. However, Ornlu's short phrase in parenthesis can, perhaps, be forgiven as an attempt to rush a complex issue in a few words. The RendoRag version, despite the attempt at 'clarification' through the additional mention of radiosity, is profoundly worse in that it is clearly wrong and misleading. This particular edit fails on all grounds. It takes something that was succinct but partially incorrect through (perhaps) limitation and turns it into something that is rambling; badly written to the extent of being almost meaningless; and totally incorrect through obvious ignorance of the facts. It's difficult to know for sure without the context of the rest of the article, but it strikes me that the obvious edit to Ornlu's sentence would have been to simply remove the troublesome reference to global illumination altogether. To be correct, reasonably succinct and comprehensive, it might have read: "For example, dome lighting (the soft, overall 'area' lighting provided by 'skylight') can be approximated through the use of complex, spherical arrays of point light sources."