It’s interesting this minor fact that, to several people including me, has seemed like an obvious omission, doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion. But if Wikipedia had less strict standards it would be very hard to keep out false information.
I think there is an interesting question of “what ought to count as evidence, if we want to produce the best online encyclopedia we can, given the flawed humans we have to write it?” My own view is that Wikipedia’s standards for evidence have become too strict in cases like this.
Eliezer Yudkowsky has made similar distinctions when talking about scientific vs legal vs rational evidence (see this wiki page) and science vs probability theory.
I think there is an interesting question of “what ought to count as evidence, if we want to produce the best online encyclopedia we can, given the flawed humans we have to write it?” My own view is that Wikipedia’s standards for evidence have become too strict in cases like this.
Probably, but OTOH scale somewhat determines complexity of policy.