"Andrew Venier" avenier@venier.net wrote in message news:42AF8877.4070305@venier.net...
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Venier wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jack Lynch wrote:
Additionally, I, and assumably many others, read encyclopedias, and esp. the wikipedia, as a source of extremely obscure and bizarre info not to be found elsewhere.
Absolutely! And I hope we can add much more. If it's verified as having been proposed by somebody (which does not mean verifying that the guy's theories make any sense), and properly sourced what more can we ask for.
What ever happened to [[WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information]]? I thought that was official policy.
I said nothing about being indiscriminate with the various available nutcases.
"If it's verified as having been proposed by somebody... and properly sourced" is a standard that many, many nutjobs can meet. Worthiness to be included in an encyclopedia is "what more we can ask for."
If it's the kind of nut-job-ness that the average person is likely to be taken in by, then we have a responsibility to at least mention it, together with (presumably ample) evidence that the guy **is** a nut-job and why people should **not** be taken in.