## Submission + - Should Wikipedia Allow Mathematical Proofs? (wikipedia.org) 4

Beetle B. writes:

*"An argument has arisen over whether Wikipedia should allow pages that provide proofs for mathematical theorems (such as this one).*

On the one hand, Wikipedia is a useful source of information and people can benefit from these proofs. On the other hand, how does one choose which proofs to include and which not to? Should Wikipedia just become a textbook that teaches mathematics? Should it just state the bare results of theorems and not provide proofs (except as external links)? Or should they take an intermediate approach and formulate a criterion for which proofs to include and which to exclude?"On the one hand, Wikipedia is a useful source of information and people can benefit from these proofs. On the other hand, how does one choose which proofs to include and which not to? Should Wikipedia just become a textbook that teaches mathematics? Should it just state the bare results of theorems and not provide proofs (except as external links)? Or should they take an intermediate approach and formulate a criterion for which proofs to include and which to exclude?"

## Wikipedia Censorship (Score:2)

In my

## Re: (Score:2)

nominationfor deletion, and I don't think it will succeed on the grounds given.## Re: (Score:2)

Well, it also reduces the number of name collisions, so fewer arguments about whose james smith gets the #1 spot.

Also when someone becomes famous, and their is already a page, it would discourage writing a article for that.

## Re: (Score:1)

Therefore, when discussing the Leven