David Goodman wrote:
The New Yorker is a serious magazine of highest standing. Discounting the initial section on New York cultural events, I would be prepared to make the case that any feature article in the New Yorker is a suitable subject for a WP article. DGG
On 6/28/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Harassment is a legal issue. Record of a persons wrongdoing is not the point of wikipedias articles. We are an encyclopedia not an archive. Wikipedia isn't about the truth. We are not the justice police.
This really isn't at all about protecting him. Because he is non-notable--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not entirely sure about that. The New Yorker certainly is a decent and reliable source, but a lot of stuff in it tends to be fleeting human-interest type stuff. That's a lot more appropriate for Wikinews than Wikipedia. The "everything that's on the front page" approach tends to lead to a disproportionate amount of recentism and a lot of unimprovable articles.