Because cryptozoology has messy and vague definitions and cryptids almost always have significant folklore history, the limitations of a “science vs pseudoscience” argument is limiting and rather dumb. Bigfoot is a cultural icon. Folklore stories about the Jersey Devil can’t be readily categorized as truth or fiction. They just ARE. Folklore, cultural icons, and fictional characters are on Wikipedia so there is no reason to have different rules for cryptids unless a person is trying to state something that isn’t supported.
The wikipedia editiors re: cryptids go too far. As an example, I attempted to add content to the entry for the Lizardman of Scape Ore Swamp. Sure, it’s local folklore. My edits which included the definitive book by Lyle Blackburn (who details the chronology from newspaper reports and interviews) was deleted because it was not a suitable source (partly because Blackburn seems “pro-cryptid” - a bogus argument, and partly because certain editors take the attribution rules beyond reason). That’s a poor approach because the legend is an important part of the town history people should know. Clearly, everything tangentially related to “cryptids” was labeled pseudoscience (folklore is not pseudoscience) and trashed instead of considering the broader context as well as the way the information was framed (not as science).
We are in a post-cryptid world where more people are embracing “pop cryptids” and fewer are looking for actual mystery zoological animals.
