[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

Tue Dec 12 22:05:07 UTC 2006

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:25:05 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

No problem with that.

>It's also perfectly fine to segregate that off on topic specific pages
>with a brief mention in the event page that says "Various
>organizations believe different theories of these events, see
>[[Conspiracy theories about XYZ]]".  Segregation is not suppression,
>and even the conspiracists eventually generally give in on those types
>of points.

Or indeed that.

>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.  

Yup, and the Pseudoscience ArbCom says pretty much that.  But the
articles on the conspiracy crap are (a) not theirs to play with, they
should still be held to normal standards of neutrality and
verifiability; and (b) should not be allowed to increase in number to
a point well beyond what can be justified by an objective evaluation
of the number and extent of the concepts being discussed.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG