[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

Tue Aug 2 20:24:50 UTC 2005

On 8/3/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Skyring wrote:
> > The difference is that some people actively argue that the earth is
> > not a sphere, whereas those who argue that Paris is not the capital of
> > France so far have kept their activities secret.
> >
> > If a fact is contentious, then it should be backed up with a cite.
> 
> I can't agree with you that flat earthers constitute a sufficiently
> respectable or large position that we need to treat the roundness of the
> earth as the sort of fact that necessitates a citation.

Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the Apollo hoax people,
and they are equally round the bend wacko. There's a lot of material
on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions. Take a
look at Papal Tiara, for example - a featured article, apparently, yet
it goes into some detail in countering the VFD claim - namely that
there is an inscription on the Pope's crown which adds up to 666. This
is just bizarre - there's no writing on the tiara and even if you
could tot it up and get 666, then so bloody what?

It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its own article, complete
with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back
explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than
voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort
of rubbish is appearing on your own site.

If you want to appear consistent, that is.
-- 
Peter in Canberra