Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649/@comment-5617235-20121227001914

@CzechOut: I suppose I should have made my statement clearer. I had, in fact, read both of those articles, and I just reread them now before writing this. However, the point I'm trying to make is this: Casual readers, or people new to the wiki, or really anyone who hasn't been to that area of the site, will be confused, because (at least on the surface of it) there is no explanation for why it's not covered.

Also, I'm not asking why these stories are invalid sources, I'm asking why we choose to not cover them. I know the rules for what's valid and what's not, but I don't get why we intentionally leave off information about invalid sources.

Can you provide me with a specific excerpt from one of those pages explaining why? I can't seem to find any.

Thanks! Bubblecamera