[WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"

[Ryan Delaney]

MSNBC articles aren't policy pages. Quoting policy pages excessively is
rules lawyering. Quoting MSNBC articles as if they are policy is just
ridiculous.

Ryan

On 4/29/06, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> I'm aware that policy isn't made in press interviews, even by Jimbo.
>
> But this starts getting quoted on talk pages:
>
> "Wales said entries have to meet a standard of newsworthiness and, as a
> general rule, should not be written by an interested party — either a
> supporter or an opponent."
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535412/from/RS.2/
>
> If didn't get this wrong, until now even interested parties
> are welcome, as long as they aim for NPOV -- with the notable
> exception of the autobiography clause.
>
> And where does "interested party" start?
>
> There are even topics so obscure ([[New Kadampa Tradition]] comes
> to my mind), that only vocal opponents and vocal proponents
> contribute. Should they already be considered "interested
> parties"? Shall we hope, that they will battle it out so that the
> result is NPOV?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
> [[User:Pjacobi]]
>
> --
> "Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
> Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>