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

[Ray Saintonge]

Steve Bennett wrote:

>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.
>
Somebody who happens to be suing the company is a very interested party. 
:-)

Ec