This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WE Charity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1826 days |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michalisk22.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Where is the criticism section? Plenty here: http://www.canadalandshow.com/craig-kielburger-founded-we-to-fight-child-labour-now-the-we-brand-promotes-products-made-by-children/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 ( talk) 03:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The article should cover alleged silencing of non-white voices: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/we-charity-amanda-maitland-1.5639716/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.184.98 ( talk) 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was affected by undisclosed paid editing. Please see WP:COIN § Potentially an undisclosed paid editor account for details. Feel free to remove anything from the article that is excessively promotional or improperly sourced. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Really glad to see this is finally a more balanced piece, and not just a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 ( talk) 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC) I concur with the comment at the top about adding a criticism section. There are some serious allegations at, http://www.canadalandshow.com/craig-kielburger-founded-we-to-fight-child-labour-now-the-we-brand-promotes-products-made-by-children/ 208.124.145.18 ( talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, as the ongoing WE scandal grows, can we create a new article for that? Similar to the SNC-Lavalin affair. User:Rushtheeditor ( talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that Rushtheeditor ( talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, believe that it is deserving of its own article at this point due to the amount of media and political coverage over the past weeks. idk, is we should refer to it as a scandal or affair though. Epluribusunumyall ( talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I removed the "paid editor" template placed in April. There have been a number of edits made since then. I ran a Who Write This check on the page and found that 18 editors have worked on this article. User:MarthaLetter who contributed 23.8 % of the edits, was blocked as a sock puppet and is no longer editing. User:MarthaLetter contributed content to articles about other charities that is positive but not necessarily biased. There is no mention of MarthaLetter being a paid editor. No other user added more than 11% to the existing article and most added less than 2%. Oceanflynn ( talk) 01:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was initially quite large before the We Charity controversy was split off into another article. Attempts were made to reduce the length after the new article was created. In my view, this section should be a short summary of the significant details of the scandal, with the detail being covered in the more expansive article. WildStar recently added a paragraph both here and in the main article, and then re-added it here after I removed it noting this is a summary. If we keep doing this sort of thing, this article will be a mirror of the article about the scandal. So the question is, is this a summary? Or are we including any and all information about WE Charity and the controversy here too?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The current link is impossible to read unless you're a member of the site. TheKing'sMongrelSon ( talk) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WE Charity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1826 days |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michalisk22.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Where is the criticism section? Plenty here: http://www.canadalandshow.com/craig-kielburger-founded-we-to-fight-child-labour-now-the-we-brand-promotes-products-made-by-children/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 ( talk) 03:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The article should cover alleged silencing of non-white voices: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/we-charity-amanda-maitland-1.5639716/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.184.98 ( talk) 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was affected by undisclosed paid editing. Please see WP:COIN § Potentially an undisclosed paid editor account for details. Feel free to remove anything from the article that is excessively promotional or improperly sourced. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Really glad to see this is finally a more balanced piece, and not just a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 ( talk) 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC) I concur with the comment at the top about adding a criticism section. There are some serious allegations at, http://www.canadalandshow.com/craig-kielburger-founded-we-to-fight-child-labour-now-the-we-brand-promotes-products-made-by-children/ 208.124.145.18 ( talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, as the ongoing WE scandal grows, can we create a new article for that? Similar to the SNC-Lavalin affair. User:Rushtheeditor ( talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that Rushtheeditor ( talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, believe that it is deserving of its own article at this point due to the amount of media and political coverage over the past weeks. idk, is we should refer to it as a scandal or affair though. Epluribusunumyall ( talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I removed the "paid editor" template placed in April. There have been a number of edits made since then. I ran a Who Write This check on the page and found that 18 editors have worked on this article. User:MarthaLetter who contributed 23.8 % of the edits, was blocked as a sock puppet and is no longer editing. User:MarthaLetter contributed content to articles about other charities that is positive but not necessarily biased. There is no mention of MarthaLetter being a paid editor. No other user added more than 11% to the existing article and most added less than 2%. Oceanflynn ( talk) 01:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was initially quite large before the We Charity controversy was split off into another article. Attempts were made to reduce the length after the new article was created. In my view, this section should be a short summary of the significant details of the scandal, with the detail being covered in the more expansive article. WildStar recently added a paragraph both here and in the main article, and then re-added it here after I removed it noting this is a summary. If we keep doing this sort of thing, this article will be a mirror of the article about the scandal. So the question is, is this a summary? Or are we including any and all information about WE Charity and the controversy here too?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The current link is impossible to read unless you're a member of the site. TheKing'sMongrelSon ( talk) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)