[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

Tue Dec 12 21:41:43 UTC 2006

>
> It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy
> theories about 9/11.  In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document
> that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.

So long as we also explain that these "theories" are thoroughly debunked and
that nobody should take them even remotely seriously, sure.

I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages
> regularly for a while and I don't know the degree of shove we're
> getting from those conspiracists of late.

"Too Much."

  I am sympathetic with "it
> takes too much effort to fight these kooks", but suppressing Wikipedia
> *coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to
> dealing with it.

No. If you say we can document that the theories exist, sure, but our
coverage shouldn't give them any sort of credibility.

In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which
> says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page,
> and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and
> puts it on the main pages. Let them have their playpen at the
> conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a
> "Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point
> on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate
> onto the main page.

Problem: this gives the kook nutjob theories credibility.

Parker