http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewAll Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view.
You'll note the above quote states ALL significant views. Not just yours, mine or as earlier suggested "people of stature" (Whatever that means. Perhaps really really really tall people?)
I would agree there has been since 2001 ongoing and heated controversy regarding paysites, EA's EULA, the layperson's varied interpretations of same, apparent non-enforcement of same and filesharing.
I would remind however that the very definition of the word controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements.
And as such, the entry in question does not qualify for inclusion based Wikipedia's official policy. Continually adding it constitutes vandalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VerifiabilityVerifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
Sources
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.
English-language sources
English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
Sources of dubious reliability
In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
Show Posts
PMBD
