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:proof should be most simple

[blind biker]

How would you know there aren't enough experts checking a certain information? Of course, IF YOU DELETE IT then you made sure there isn't anyone reading it and checking it.

So if you have something like a mathematical proof, and noone modifies it, is that a sign that nobody understands it, or that it's correct? I would guess the latter, but even if not, I would not go on deleting it just because I sustepct something. Who am I to delete stuff that smarter people than me have written?

Or do you mean to say that the basis/policy on which Wikipedia works is admins who are ignorant about topic X will delete articles about topic X?