Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-5632187-20140928041755/@comment-3492791-20141014031636

My issue with this is not being unwilling to compromise, it's that the grayer things get, the harder it is to see the lines. No tolerance policies are easy to enforce. Black and white only leaves two options.

Too much flexibility leads to people clashing with subjective views because there is no objective baseline. You said the baseline should be that information is, "plausible and fact-based", but that isn't possible. Plausibility can easily differ from one person to another. Speculation is inherently not fact-based, as anything with the word maybe in it is based on conjecture. You may X, Y, and Z and all being connected, but someone else may think that's total nonsense, and neither party is wrong as these view are not indisputable.

My exaggerated example earlier was trying to get across the point that if someone makes a claim and provides some paltry evidence, which to them completely follows the criteria you set forth, how can anyone provide the counter-evidence to prove the claim is false? Any form of policing comes down to individuals' opinions. The only way to solve a dispute like that, since no party will be definitively correct or incorrect, is to take the majority opinion on the matter. We can't have a community discussion every time someone wants to add trivia to a page, it would be completely impractical.