Talk:Outside In (organization)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
primary sourcing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another Believer, you're going around removing org sources but if you read the RS guidelines, you'll see that primary source about companies are not disallowed. Even with all the sourcing, there is still a COI when the contents are structured around how the company wants it written and sources are "built" around what they want to say. This is the type of COI to concern ourselves with just as much as copy and pasting contents from the organization's own page. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Ok, sure, then add back what you think is appropriate, and identify your concerns with the existing content. I'm less concerned about whether or not you want to use organization websites as citations, and more concerned about making the article neutral and removing the tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've reverted back to the point before where you started. I'm working on adding source for the 1219 sw main st Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, So let the record show I took steps to try to address specific sourcing concerns, and you elected to revert to status quo which you deemed non neutral and problematic for COI reasons. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted, because I believe you completely misunderstood that issue was the "primary source". There's a deep rooted problem that becomes embedded when people representing the company build the framework of the page, which has happened in this one. The person who started the page worked for the org at the time he built the page from grounds up. So to put it in an analogy, it's not about how its paved. It's about how the road was planned and routed. You could repave the road and it wouldn't solve it if the bias is introduced into the planning. Do you get the idea? It's not an instant fix. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- But we can more or less fix the problem immediately by removing problematic content, which you've yet to identify. I was working to address potentially non-neutral content and remove primary sourced content. There's no need to keep the COI scarlet letter on the article forever, if we can remove bad content. Please explain why you insist on keeping the tag, or at least demonstrate you're taking steps to remove problematic content. Otherwise, looks like you're just fighting to keep the tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm signing out for now. As I said, your expected time line have come across as unreasonably rushed, every single time. You apparently edit wiki all day, every day. Others usually don't. Keep that in mind. Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I understand, but if you are unable to identify problematic content in the near future, I will be reverting to the version of the article without the primary sourcing. This was at least an attempt to start fixing the problem. Hopefully other editors will weigh in re: sourcing and which content trims would aid in tag removal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm signing out for now. As I said, your expected time line have come across as unreasonably rushed, every single time. You apparently edit wiki all day, every day. Others usually don't. Keep that in mind. Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- But we can more or less fix the problem immediately by removing problematic content, which you've yet to identify. I was working to address potentially non-neutral content and remove primary sourced content. There's no need to keep the COI scarlet letter on the article forever, if we can remove bad content. Please explain why you insist on keeping the tag, or at least demonstrate you're taking steps to remove problematic content. Otherwise, looks like you're just fighting to keep the tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted, because I believe you completely misunderstood that issue was the "primary source". There's a deep rooted problem that becomes embedded when people representing the company build the framework of the page, which has happened in this one. The person who started the page worked for the org at the time he built the page from grounds up. So to put it in an analogy, it's not about how its paved. It's about how the road was planned and routed. You could repave the road and it wouldn't solve it if the bias is introduced into the planning. Do you get the idea? It's not an instant fix. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, So let the record show I took steps to try to address specific sourcing concerns, and you elected to revert to status quo which you deemed non neutral and problematic for COI reasons. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've reverted back to the point before where you started. I'm working on adding source for the 1219 sw main st Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added a couple "better source needed" tags, and a couple "citation needed" tags. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Motto
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved- "point of no return". It's part of their logo. The inclusion discretion is simply that of populating the infobox prefab form and I feel this is non-contro. It's not necessary to find "secondary source" to cite "Just Do It" is a a Nike slogan or I'm Lovin It is a McDonald's slogan. In these examples, their respective sites are fine. What happens often is that these sort of things are "secondary sourced" sometimes on Wikipedia on run of the mill entities as notability holding pins which isn't quite proper. Graywalls (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Content in the infobox should be sourced there or within the article body text. Please add an appropriate source for the motto. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say it didn't need to be sourced, at all. Just explaining what I believe to be an acceptable situation for primary source. Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- All good, just explaining why I added the 'citation needed' tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding a citation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- All good, just explaining why I added the 'citation needed' tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say it didn't need to be sourced, at all. Just explaining what I believe to be an acceptable situation for primary source. Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Tag
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May I ask, what's the purpose of the COI tag at the top of the article? The tag says, "[The article may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." Can we determine which content is problematic so the tag can be removed? I'm not particularly interested in the quality of this article, but I do think discussing ways to improve the article so the tag can be removed is appropriate. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I assume the following content should be removed?
- In addition to the FQHC, Outside In's medical clinic operates two medical outreach vans and a school-based health center at Milwaukie High School.[1]
References
- ^ "Medical Services". Outside In. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
- @Graywalls: Curious what you think, both about this sentence and the tag in general. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: This article was created by and significantly edited by an employee, which means the organization played a role in selecting how it's written and what goes on. That's why that is there. Graywalls (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I understand, but we can make decisions to remove problematic content in order to remove the tag. The tag should not remain there forever just because. Can you identify specific concerns or remove problematic text? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Forever is relative. I have asked you this before, but why is it that with you, you seem to exert such a pressure on sense of urgency? People edit things at their pace and I feel it's unreasonable that you apparently implicitly expect them to go along at your pace. I believe at least one other editor has mentioned to you they felt you expect immediacy. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Again, you're avoiding the question. We can simply remove problematic content in order to remove the tag. This doesn't take a long time to do. I'm not worried about getting this done immediately, but part of the process of removing the tag is discussing problematic content. That's what we're doing here, no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you had been paying attention to talk comments, you would have seen specific points I've raised. Bit by bit. Whenever I encounter you, I still experience pressure for action/response now. I'm not avoiding the question, I will chip at it at my own pace, as I've been doing until you came along and I'd be happy to address your questions at that time. Happy editing Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I've removed some content sourced by the org's website. Any other problematic content you'd like to identify? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you had been paying attention to talk comments, you would have seen specific points I've raised. Bit by bit. Whenever I encounter you, I still experience pressure for action/response now. I'm not avoiding the question, I will chip at it at my own pace, as I've been doing until you came along and I'd be happy to address your questions at that time. Happy editing Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Again, you're avoiding the question. We can simply remove problematic content in order to remove the tag. This doesn't take a long time to do. I'm not worried about getting this done immediately, but part of the process of removing the tag is discussing problematic content. That's what we're doing here, no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Forever is relative. I have asked you this before, but why is it that with you, you seem to exert such a pressure on sense of urgency? People edit things at their pace and I feel it's unreasonable that you apparently implicitly expect them to go along at your pace. I believe at least one other editor has mentioned to you they felt you expect immediacy. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I understand, but we can make decisions to remove problematic content in order to remove the tag. The tag should not remain there forever just because. Can you identify specific concerns or remove problematic text? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: This article was created by and significantly edited by an employee, which means the organization played a role in selecting how it's written and what goes on. That's why that is there. Graywalls (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: If there are no replies here within the next week or so, I will remove the tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Tag, part II
Do editors think the COI tag is still needed? If not, specifically which content is problematic from a neutrality perspective? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)