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

[Steve Bennett]

On 30/04/06, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi at gmx.net> wrote:
> 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?

A vocal opponent is not an interested party. An interested party is a
party with, well, an interest in the matter, like a shareholder,
employee etc. For Wikipedia purposes, you can pretty much consider
interested party to mean the party itself.

Steve