[WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

Tue Mar 8 00:15:57 UTC 2005

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:55:19 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
It implies that a crackpot theory
> is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere
> else.  However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous
> that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed
> to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
> You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.

It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere
reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would
therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so
ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost
certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR,
NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly,
as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others.
Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you
raise.

Sarah