![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article expands a single viewpoint on a complex issue. There is neither substantive discussion of alternative points of view nor even mention that they exist. However searches of online journalism and records of public institutions in Manila and at the national level of the Philippines government indicate clearly that the pro-privatization viewpoint of this article is not universally accepted. Beyond being the only viewpoint discussed it is unclear that it is a majority viewpoint.
Out of 15 cited sources:
1 was impossible to verify (link to Wikipedia article describing the named publication; no article found on website of named publication)
1 is not available publicly
4 are from international development agencies who universally and generally promote privitization or public-private partnerships
8 are either from the two private companies whom are the focus of discussion or citations from high officials of said companies
Not a single source is critical or oppositional to the viewpoint expounded in the article.
Many "facts" are not cited--for example:
"The plan to privatize the public utility of Manila, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), emerged from the inability of MWSS to expand coverage for a growing population or to improve service quality and efficiency. By 1996, MWSS only provided water supply for on average 16 hours each day to two thirds of Metro Manila. " -- two facts, no citations.
or:
"Maynilad incurred high costs, in part because it awarded contracts to affiliates of Suez without competitive bidding. It pursued an approach to connect poor communities that included laying pipes in slums, which made it difficult to control theft. Indeed, non-revenue water even increased in the Western zone. Maynilad also brought in new staff from Benpres that had no experience in water supply, which led to tensions and reduced the motivation of incubmbent staff." --again, no citations.
How can I verify this information as a reader of this article?
Further, normative and value-laden language appears throughout the article--for example:
"a spectacular increase in access"
or:
"a desolated financial situation"
In both cases the normative language adds no facts and further promotes the single viewpoint of this article.
In short this article is a poorly cited, value-laden, and one-sided discussion of a complex topic. It does not further the reader's understanding of the topic but rather promotes a specific viewpoint on the topic at hand. More than half the sources are public relations material from the companies at the center of this topic. It is open propaganda and not fit for an encyclopedia.
FYI, I have no agenda here other than the pursuit of good information. I came across this article while researching privatization and public-private partnerships of utilities. My shock at the one-sided presentation of a complex and controversial topic prompted me to open a wikipedia account in order to call attention to this article.
I hope attention from experts on the topic will be able to edit the existing article into a fact-based and substantive discussion.
Nfreedman ( talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think the title is misleading. As a reader I expect to read about the Philippine situation but all it is about Metro Manila. -- 112.205.51.84 ( talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Water privatization in Metro Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article expands a single viewpoint on a complex issue. There is neither substantive discussion of alternative points of view nor even mention that they exist. However searches of online journalism and records of public institutions in Manila and at the national level of the Philippines government indicate clearly that the pro-privatization viewpoint of this article is not universally accepted. Beyond being the only viewpoint discussed it is unclear that it is a majority viewpoint.
Out of 15 cited sources:
1 was impossible to verify (link to Wikipedia article describing the named publication; no article found on website of named publication)
1 is not available publicly
4 are from international development agencies who universally and generally promote privitization or public-private partnerships
8 are either from the two private companies whom are the focus of discussion or citations from high officials of said companies
Not a single source is critical or oppositional to the viewpoint expounded in the article.
Many "facts" are not cited--for example:
"The plan to privatize the public utility of Manila, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), emerged from the inability of MWSS to expand coverage for a growing population or to improve service quality and efficiency. By 1996, MWSS only provided water supply for on average 16 hours each day to two thirds of Metro Manila. " -- two facts, no citations.
or:
"Maynilad incurred high costs, in part because it awarded contracts to affiliates of Suez without competitive bidding. It pursued an approach to connect poor communities that included laying pipes in slums, which made it difficult to control theft. Indeed, non-revenue water even increased in the Western zone. Maynilad also brought in new staff from Benpres that had no experience in water supply, which led to tensions and reduced the motivation of incubmbent staff." --again, no citations.
How can I verify this information as a reader of this article?
Further, normative and value-laden language appears throughout the article--for example:
"a spectacular increase in access"
or:
"a desolated financial situation"
In both cases the normative language adds no facts and further promotes the single viewpoint of this article.
In short this article is a poorly cited, value-laden, and one-sided discussion of a complex topic. It does not further the reader's understanding of the topic but rather promotes a specific viewpoint on the topic at hand. More than half the sources are public relations material from the companies at the center of this topic. It is open propaganda and not fit for an encyclopedia.
FYI, I have no agenda here other than the pursuit of good information. I came across this article while researching privatization and public-private partnerships of utilities. My shock at the one-sided presentation of a complex and controversial topic prompted me to open a wikipedia account in order to call attention to this article.
I hope attention from experts on the topic will be able to edit the existing article into a fact-based and substantive discussion.
Nfreedman ( talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think the title is misleading. As a reader I expect to read about the Philippine situation but all it is about Metro Manila. -- 112.205.51.84 ( talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Water privatization in Metro Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)