I agree with SM.
In reading the article, I see that the featured critics are (a) not notable, (b) not significant, and (b) they are just people that don't particularly like this person's journalistic style. Had the criticism been reported in mainstream media, or other third reputable third party, that would have been a different situation. Blogs and personal homepages are not reliable sources as primary sources as per [[WP:RS]] .
-- Jossi
On May 6, 2006, at 6:07 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that, I started editing a biography this week that led to a troubling series of events. The article in question, [[Xeni Jardin]], is about a blogger for [[Boing Boing]]. I did not know who she was when I started editing, but I saw that there was a lot of controversy about inclusion of a "Criticism" section, including a "xenisucks.com" site.
Hi Jokestress, that blog is not a reliable source within the terms of the policies. Blogs may only be used as primary sources about the author of the blog. To be used as third-party sources about any other topic, the blogger has to be a widely known and acknowledged expert in the area he's commenting on. For this kind of anonymous or quasi-anonymous gossip, a blog is never acceptable. We err on the side of caution when writing living biographies.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l