User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Back to Googology: a reminder as to why this wiki was opened in the first place/@comment-11227630-20181012084451/@comment-35470197-20181013014227

@PsiCubed2

I think that unbased claims should be freely allowed in blogs as long as they conflict no rule or no law, because they are kind of personal spaces.

The original posters are not usually intending to regard them as academic sources. What teachers should do among them is not to believe the contents of blogs, but to verify the claims by themslves. (Not only teachers, but also other users. Wee always need information literacy.)

On the other hand, I think that unbased claims should not be allowed in articles. Arguments without sources should be clarified, because the wiki policy said that it is a secondary source.

One of the worst attitudes is to shift the responsibility of unbased claims to existing innocent mathematicians or journals. Writing "the proof is written in this published paper" is awful if no proof is actually written in that paper.

However, this is just my personal thought. Maybe almost all googologists here might not agree with me. At least, when I pointed out this to Deedlit when he commited the worst attitude above, he just blamed me as to be very pedantic without correcting his statement on the existence of a published proof.

As a consequence, I doubt that this wiki can be a secondary source on googology. Disrespecting citations and shifting responsibility conflict academic standards. The main benefit of this wiki is the benefit as a place for sharing blogs freely and for reading (non-resourced but very interesting) articles.