Talk:KVSF-FM

I discovered the need for an update because of the callsign change during my monthly review of FCC license changes. This needs to be split into two articles (it probably was unwise to move it a week ago) - one about the current radio station KVSF, and one about the prior group renting the station that continues to stream on the internet.

I also removed the paragraph stating "considerable controversy" about the ownership/format change - as the only cited source supporting the assertion is decidedly non neutral, and contained only 2 pages of primary source opinion - obviously by someone connected to the prior indie format. Please review Wikipedia policy on neutral POV and reliable sources.StreamingRadioGuide 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

REPLY Below:

(apologies, I'm not sure if this is used as a discussion board or?? I've not changed your original post)

Thanks for the input and update. I added the "significant controversy" paragraph, admittedly without reviewing the specific standards for citation and POV. I now have...

In all sincerity, and for my future ability to contribute to Wikipedia, there really was and is a great deal of controversy surrounding the sale. Without taking a stand on any side of the situation, the sale of this station, in conjunction with the sale/potential sale of two other stations in Santa Fe, NM (a small town indeed), represents the epitome of the "Media Consolidation" discussion (see wikipedia articles on this subject-for better or worse, one company owns 5, soon to be 6 stations in a very small market). It would seem valuable to record or note this fact, and provide the connection to other relevant articles at wikipedia.

How would the fact that there is controversy over the sale, and the fact that the sale is part of the largest media consolidation in Santa Fe's history best be represented as something informational?

Perhaps its not appropriate, but it would seem to be. Specific sources indicating that there *is* controversy over the issue include several local and regional newspaper articles (citeable via weblinks) as well as Letters to the Editor of local papers. Without scholorly research on the whether or not a controversy exists...what esle can be done?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts as an apparently more seasoned wiki contributor than myself.


 * Put four tildes (~) at the end so we know who said what and when, please. I will try to summarize the policies.  In general, wikipedia contributors should avoid writing about things in which they have a direct personal interest or an emotional attachment, because it is very hard to avoid introducing personal opinions and bias.  Wikipedia's goal is to be a neutral source of information, relying on facts gleaned from neutral reliable sources that are not involved financially or otherwise with the subject of the article.   The way to document a controversy is to find and cite information from reliable publications that have a reputation for enforcing editorial policies that separate opinions from facts - that would not include blogs, personal web sites, message boards, advocacy group web sites... letters to the editor are opinions, not facts.  Even if independent reliable third party sources are cited to tell the story, it still could be a NPOV issue if the selection of citations disproportionately reflect only one side of a "controversy".  Something does not become controversial just because someone says it is.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag
The Radio Project's standing position on notability is that any radio station that has a government issued license is defacto notable. If you would like to convince them to change their position on this, you may find supporters - as the workload of maintaining 14,000 articles on US radio stations becomes more and more apparent, and the original volunteers lose interest, that position looks more and more unrealistic.

Creating a project doesn't mean that Wikipedia's guidelines, standards and policies don't apply ("Wikipedia is not a directory" comes to mind) to articles maintained by the project - but someone employed by Wikipedia probably needs to arbitrate that and I have an obvious competing interest. Every new article in Wikipedia creates an ongoing "cost" in time, human attention, and computer processing to maintain into the future - that's why the notability requirement exists in the first place and should be more stringent than just having a piece of paper issued by a government agency.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)