Should Wikipedia Allow Mathematical Proofs?

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?"

Comments

Re:Sure

[realmolo]

I disagree.

Why SHOULDN'T Wikipedia contain the "entire subject" (assuming copyright allows it)? I can't honestly think of a good reason. Why should information be hard to find?

I think that there is a certain segment of the academic population that LIKES the fact that a large percentage of higher-education is about digging up already existing data. That's not education, that's archaeology. Stupid.

Make the data easy to get. We don't need more librarians, we need more people who can expand on the store of knowledge we already have with new ideas.