exactly was i was trying to say, but put more elegently.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:28:23 -0800, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider scientific community with a boilerplate, or is it barred altogether?
'Unproven by the wider scientific community' is not the same thing. Crackpot theories can, and should, be documented on Wikipedia - as long as you're reporting in a NPOV way about someone ELSE's crackpot theory that's documented -- they've written a book, a paper, a website, whatever. And as long as they have an audience bigger than just themselves, anyway.
Wikipedia is not the place to post your OWN crackpot theories, odd philosophy, or whatever.
Basically, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a secondary source.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l