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

If it's anything like /.

[Sgt_Jake]

No one will RTFProof anyway.

Re:Sure

[3seas]

Wikipedia should not hold proofs but only allow offsite links to the proofs.

wikipedia is a hearsay site, requiring references to what is posted. By doing this wikipedia avoids being held responsible for its contents as it does not have the resources or the lawyers, and never will, to properly research subject matter or to keep it verified.

By referencing offsite information, it is up to the offsite location to maintain the verified information. For proofs this is a plus because an offsite link can prevent editing of the proof, where wikipedia is intended to be open to edit.

Constantly and growing is wikipedia being used for propaganda, as yet another article on slashdot mentions.
Propaganda, I'm sure, was never the intent of wikipedia, but people will do what they do.