" 

 ::Thykingdomcome, the reason you cannot edit the article is because it has been protected from unregistered users due to vandalism - anyone who registers an account may contribute to the article, however their contributions will be subject to the same litmus tests for verifiability & reliable sourcing. I think you are not grasping the point of an encyclopedia, which is okay - many editors on Wikipedia don't quite realize it because it's not innately evident. An encyclopedia (any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia) serves to introduce readers to subjects in a way that accurately represents the reality of the subject matter. This means that, rather than being equally neutral to all sides, an article should be written from a neutral point of view that does not interfere with the weight of any points of view by representing them with ""undue weight"" (see the Undue Weight clause of WP:NPOV). This means that on any given subject, if the majority of people accept A, and the minority of people accept B, then such should be reflected in articles on that subject. So if the standing consensus is that conspiracy theories are bunk, while a significant minority accept conspiracy theories as reality, then it would be inaccurate to represent those 2 views as having equal weight, because one actually has more weight than the other - it would also be inaccurate to represent the minority view as the prevailing point of view, because in reality it isn't. I hope this explains it a little better. Usually this concept is a deal maker or deal breaker for wiki editors - many people can't tolerate the fact that Wikipedia administrators & editors won't allow them to give undue weight to their views, and in many cases this makes people leave Wikipedia with a sour taste in their mouths. What they would rather do is write a blog, a book, or in some forum where they can give their views equal or dominant weight. At Wikipedia, we consider that to be intellectually dishonest and non-encyclopedic.  •  "