Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported
by some media source or other?
Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take
long for the media to forget all about it. And nobody will even give a
rat's behind about the Essjay Controversy in five, ten years, except for
maybe a few Wikipedia users who were affected by it. Just because a
person or event made some headlines doesn't necessarily mean that that
person or event is notable. Oh, it's *verifiable*, to be sure, but
verifiability is not the same as notability, or else Wikipedia would
have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is
arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
Do real encyclopedias devote space to discussing singular events that
happened to be reported by some random notable media source? Not
generally. Now, granted, real encyclopedias generally don't have lists
of episodes in television series as well (and some would argue that
having those lists is one of Wikipedia's strong points), and there are
quite a few other things that might not be found in traditional
encyclopedias due to the fact that Wikipedia is an entirely different
medium. However, as for events that just happened to get a flurry of
media attention that then died down, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
Todd Allen wrote:
I don't believe there's any form of
"punishment" here. This issue turned
out to be a pretty major one, reported on by quite a few reliable
sources, so we have an article on it. That's not a punishment, it's what
we do.