Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 488

Archive 485

Archive 486

Archive 487

Archive 488

Archive 489

Archive 490

→

Archive 495

COI in creating page for AWA Lighting Designers

Hello all, I'm working on my first article, but I am a "paid contributor" (the subject is my employer) and well aware of the accompanying COI issues. Rather than just toss in my hat, I want to make sure I do everything properly; I understand that submitting a draft to AfC with the proper COI tag, {{connected contributor (paid)}}, is a final step. However, how much or how little content is appropriate? And what kinds of information should I include or avoid (e.g., listing projects, biographical material like education/employment, etc.)? I know these are murky waters I'm navigating, so thank you for your patience and help.

A link to the current draft is here: User:Camnelson15/AWA_Lighting_Designers. I've kept it short to start, and don't worry about more general issues, I plan to have third-party sources for everything, and format it all nicely. The main thing I want to understand is COI ethics/procedures. I'm taking this one step at a time.

Thanks again!

Camnelson15 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I replaced {{connected contributor (paid)}} with {{tl|connected contributor (paid)}} so that this page is no longer tagged as having a connected contributor. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Camnelson15, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being up-front about your status. I have taken the liberty of replacing your external link above by a Wikilink, for clarity.

The (potential) problem is that you have started the wrong way round. You have started with information you know about the company, put it in, and found sources for it. That is better than a lot of people manage, who don't even provide sources. But it is not the way to write a good Wikipedia article. What you need to do is to start by finding independent reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. Then you should forget every single thing you know about the company, and write an article based strictly on what these sources say (though in your own words, so as not to infringe their copyright). If that gives you a substantial article, then you might fill it out with factual information from the company's own resources, and add a selection of products or projects that they have done. But an article that consists almost entirely of projects or products is not encyclopaedic, and indicates that either the company is not notable or that the writer has not found the sources which will establish its notability.

I'm not sure about the two references for which you haven't given URL's, but of the five you have, not one is a substantial piece about the company - they all just mention it; and few of them are independent: if they are published by a company they work with, they are not independent. It is possible that references 2 or 6 are substantial pieces about the company; but given that you have used them to support specific projects, I doubt it. You need to find articles in major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers, which have substantial pieces about the company (not just about its founder, or about particular projects), written by independent people, not associates of the company (and also not based on press releases or interviews). If you can find some, then write the article based on those; if you can't, then give up, because in that case the company doesn't meet our criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine, I'll give that approach (coming at it blind) a shot! Your candor is appreciated. --Camnelson15 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking content

(cut and paste from archive) I am trying to work on an editing issue with another editor who blanked a lot of content that I referenced very well and was an update to older research. I would rather do this between the editor and myself before I revert, but isn't blanking content sometimes considered a form of vandalism? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bfpage, you're not a new user by any means; why are you asking this at the Teahouse, since you know perfectly well how WP:BRD works? Assuming it's the sequence of edits at Probiotic and its related pages which are the issue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is the place to go for what will be a discussion requiring fairly specialist input on the relative validity of different research groups, if you can't get a consensus on the article talkpages. (I'm noting a singular absence of attempts by you to discuss this on the talk pages, FWIW.) ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you really are User:Bfpage, an experienced editor and a Teahouse host, not a Teahouse guest, then I wonder whether your Visiting Scholar account has been compromised, because you know how to report vandalism and how to use WikiProjects to get expert participation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not such a friendly response...hmmmm, maybe even a bit icy. Though I am not a new editor by any means and did not say that I was, I still have an editing question. I am sorry that I did not get back sooner. My question is not about the Probiotics article at all. As a matter of fact, I have absolutely no problems with the Probiotic article and hope to continue to work with other editors to make it better. I have waited until my editing history was long enough so that my question would not be tied to a particular article and that assumptions like the ones made above could not be made. Yes, I know about being bold, but the edits I am referring were not so bold. As for my account being compromised, that is not the case as far as I know. Discussing small edits made over a relatively long period of time is not something that usually merits discussion on talk pages. You won't find too much from me on the Probiotics talk page since I don't have a problem with the editing. I generally avoid reverting, it gets so contentious. But the edits made to an article that I was working on were not bold but over time much of my MEDRS supported content was removed - one small edit at a time. Essentially in the course of a two week period, at least half of it was gone. My point is that if the content were removed all at once, it would be blanking content, is that correct? I think I get the gist of what you might be getting at - blanking content in small, incremental steps is not a form of vandalism, yes? Best Regards.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) and Bfpage

I, for one, really don't like to answer questions of this level of generality. The answer to questions of this high level of generality is typically: Sometimes. Maybe. However, to answer your question as you asked it, you already know that large-scale blanking, unless accompanied by a detailed edit summary, is usually a form of vandalism. You appear to be referring to repeated small-scale blanking of content. If you are saying that small edits over a period of time are not normally discussed on talk pages, I wouldn't generalize, and your question makes me uneasy because of its generality, but I wouldn't say that repeated small edits with an overall effect are not worth discussing. You are forcing me to do a lot of guesswork, which is why I really don't like your question, but, if an editor is repeatedly removing small amounts of content, knowing or hoping that the edits will not be discussed, it probably isn't vandalism as such, because it may be POV-pushing instead. Now, rather than deliberately being annoying and vague and general, will you please direct us to an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It has really helped me. I am sorry to be forcing you to do a lot of guesswork and my question is genuinely being asked in good faith. I needed a general answer about editing and what you wrote makes a lot of sense. I don't intend to be deliberately annoying but my question was really about editing and blanking of content and you have given me an unbiased viewpoint about blanking content vs. POV-pushing. I won't direct you to an article, I am sorry. Instead if I continue to have questions about the kind of blanking of content that may be happening, I will discuss with such things with any editor with whom I have a problem. I am here to make an encyclopedia and learn as much as I can from other experienced editors like yourself. I am not sure why I am annoying. I don't want to be. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (other username, Bfpage)

Which of my sources are not reliable?

Hello :) My article was declined, and I would like some help determining how to correct it to wikipedia standards: Draft:James Norley (model/actor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Norley_(model/actor)

My 3 sources were Models.com, IMDb, and Twitter.

Models.com lists all the previous work of models with links to the work to verify it.

IMDb doesn't allow user-generated content when it comes to the work the actor has done. Users can't even submit their own, someone from the film team does that, and IMDb has to approve them, so that would count as reliable right?

Twitter, I can see how that's not reliable because people can say anything they want in their bios.

Any help is welcome. Thank you very much! Nephasno (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nephasno. Please start by reading and thoroughly understanding Your first article. We require significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The model directory is, well, just a directory. Directory listings do not establish notability. IMDb may have limited use on Wikipedia, but the content you mention is also, in effect, a directory listing, which does not establish notability. An official Twitter feed may be acceptable for a few non-controversial biographical details, but it is most certainly not an independent, reliable source, so has no value in establishing notability. We need solid prose coverage in several independent sources with reputations for accuracy and professional editorial control. Lacking that, Wikipedia would instantly deteriorate into a swamp of spam and gossip. No, people cannot say anything they want in their Wikipedia biographies. They have no ownership rights whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere the documentation discourages the use of IMDb. Twitter is just a social site that anyone can contribute to, so of course it's fairly unreliable. I guess one reason why so many entries on Wikipedia have the "need citations" template is beause reliable sources are hard to find, while unreliable sources are plentiful, especially on the internet.
-- Vmavanti (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That documentation on IMBDb would be WP:CITINGIMDB. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)