It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy
theories about 9/11. In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document
that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.
So long as we also explain that these "theories" are thoroughly debunked
and
that nobody should take them even remotely seriously, sure.
I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages
regularly for a while and I don't know the
degree of shove we're
getting from those conspiracists of late.
"Too Much."
I am sympathetic with "it
takes too much effort to fight these kooks",
but suppressing Wikipedia
*coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to
dealing with it.
No. If you say we can document that the theories exist, sure, but our
coverage shouldn't give them any sort of credibility.
In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which
says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated
to a separate page,
and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and
puts it on the main pages. Let them have their playpen at the
conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a
"Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point
on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate
onto the main page.
Problem: this gives the kook nutjob theories credibility.
The real problem here is that overenthusiastic anti-conspiracists get into a
vicious cycle where they try and suppress conspiracists, which encourages
the conspiracists, which further angers the anti-conspiracists.
You are part of the problem. You can either keep battering your head on it
until it stops hurting, or play Aikido with the problem. Guess which way
minimizes long term stress by anti-conspiracists and public belief in
conspiracy theories?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com