exactly was i was trying to say, but put more elegently.
paz y amor,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:28:23 -0800, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:30:07 +0000, R E Broadley
Can we add content that is unproven by the wider
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade(a)jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit