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(a)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(a)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.