[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[Rob Smith]

On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One side conspiracy
> theorists, one side pretty much the official line. If you're on the
> not-hoax side, then it's exceptionally rare for you to quibble with
> the "official story" - or, if you do, you contextualise it as part of
> a historical discussion, "hey, this new document suggests we've had X
> wrong all along" and not as Something Smells Fishy Here, "hey, this
> new document exposes the official coverup of Y". Details don't
> desperately matter; indeed, hoax proponents with greatly differing
> reasons behind their beliefs seem to coexist happily.


Conspiracy theories are a cottage industry--there's always a market for it.
That's why it's disappointing not to see more support from ArbCom for
Principal (4) "Reliable sources".  WP:ATTFAQ finally has something about
"obsolete sources" -- hallaluja.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_regarded_as_unreliable.3F

nobs