On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@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...
nobs