I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their
views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the
arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not
directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not
being encyclopedic.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 3:20 PM, Delirium wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
If a contributor's only source is a pirate
radio station, then write
an
article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with
[[
and ]] brackets, like this:
* According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of
elderberries.
I agree, but I would also note that you don't have to mention what
everyone says on everything. However, the main criterion should not
be objectivity (it's not our job to be media critic) but relevance.
If it's a pirate radio station with a shady reputation but a large
audience and large name-recognition, then what they say should be
noted and attributed to them (and people can decide if they're just
nuts). If it's some random guy nobody knows about, we of course don't
have to say "but this guy said [blah blah]".
In this case from what I can tell it's somewhat borderline. It's a
station with a small but hardcore following, but it seems well known
in the general public because of the controversy surrounding it. So
I'd lean towards reporting what they say (where reasonably relevant,
as given the media coverage I think this case is) and just attributing
it to them. If other people have questioned the veracity of the
report, we can say that too.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l