This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Raw Story 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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Due to frequent requests by TRS' editorial staff, the content section is running afoul of WP:EXCESSDETAIL and is turning into an exhaustive index of TRS' past articles. Most of these are sourced to a single outlet aggregating a TRS story and providing a link credit to TRS. Using this as a standard, the Content section will quickly spin wildly out of control; this is a level of detail we provide to no other media outlet. Should we remove mention of articles in which the article itself (versus the content of the article) is not the subject of a story? By my count, using a very generous interpretation, that would preclude inclusion of these:
Chetsford ( talk) 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Editor 98.46.111.30, who remarks he/she is a "disinterested but professional academic editor/writer (retired prof); only concern here is rigor/verifiability", left the article a mess of half-done research and research notes (which don't belong in the article itself).
There was some original research added, especially phrases or sentences to which the user tagged as 'citation needed' -- so why add those at all?
Wikipedia does not need to record a blow-by-blow account of every action related to company acquisitions. That would be WP:UNDUE. Just state that something was bought, maybe a reason given why, record a date, and be done with it.
Edit summary complaint about no citation for people in infobox -- turns out it was in the body under section "Staff", but another editor had removed all the other people except for two. Current staff are found in the masthead which is cited in the body.
Edit summary complaint about naming a reference "HIV1"; I refer user to the domain name of the URL of the citation. There was probably an HIV2 which subsequently was deleted. Keep in mind the company owner advocates for HIV prevention so 'shivers up thy spine'... I refer editor to Wikipedia is not censored.
I will look at some of the complaints and fix a few, but if editor feels the need to add huge chunks of content, then I suggest approaching it with smaller bites. For example, fix citation formats in one edit (they'll probably be just fine), and add content in a separate edit. I hate to remove a series of a new editor's good faith edits, but I cannot fix this mess. Rollback it is. Grorp ( talk) 08:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
JByrne404 ( talk) 22:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Editor & Publisher recently did a long profile of Raw Story, the type of trade publication article that can be useful in building a Wikipedia history section. https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/raw-story-exploring-new-ways-to-build-audience-with-investigative-news-paywalls-and-partnerships,248337
Here are two ideas, though any editor can take a look and see what merits inclusion.
Top of history section:
Possibly following first paragraph in history:
References supporting change: https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/raw-story-exploring-new-ways-to-build-audience-with-investigative-news-paywalls-and-partnerships,248337 https://www.rawstory.com/2007/03/soviet-era-compound-in-northern-poland-was-site-of-secret-cia-interrogation-detentions/
Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 ( talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Raw Story 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: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Due to frequent requests by TRS' editorial staff, the content section is running afoul of WP:EXCESSDETAIL and is turning into an exhaustive index of TRS' past articles. Most of these are sourced to a single outlet aggregating a TRS story and providing a link credit to TRS. Using this as a standard, the Content section will quickly spin wildly out of control; this is a level of detail we provide to no other media outlet. Should we remove mention of articles in which the article itself (versus the content of the article) is not the subject of a story? By my count, using a very generous interpretation, that would preclude inclusion of these:
Chetsford ( talk) 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Editor 98.46.111.30, who remarks he/she is a "disinterested but professional academic editor/writer (retired prof); only concern here is rigor/verifiability", left the article a mess of half-done research and research notes (which don't belong in the article itself).
There was some original research added, especially phrases or sentences to which the user tagged as 'citation needed' -- so why add those at all?
Wikipedia does not need to record a blow-by-blow account of every action related to company acquisitions. That would be WP:UNDUE. Just state that something was bought, maybe a reason given why, record a date, and be done with it.
Edit summary complaint about no citation for people in infobox -- turns out it was in the body under section "Staff", but another editor had removed all the other people except for two. Current staff are found in the masthead which is cited in the body.
Edit summary complaint about naming a reference "HIV1"; I refer user to the domain name of the URL of the citation. There was probably an HIV2 which subsequently was deleted. Keep in mind the company owner advocates for HIV prevention so 'shivers up thy spine'... I refer editor to Wikipedia is not censored.
I will look at some of the complaints and fix a few, but if editor feels the need to add huge chunks of content, then I suggest approaching it with smaller bites. For example, fix citation formats in one edit (they'll probably be just fine), and add content in a separate edit. I hate to remove a series of a new editor's good faith edits, but I cannot fix this mess. Rollback it is. Grorp ( talk) 08:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
JByrne404 ( talk) 22:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Editor & Publisher recently did a long profile of Raw Story, the type of trade publication article that can be useful in building a Wikipedia history section. https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/raw-story-exploring-new-ways-to-build-audience-with-investigative-news-paywalls-and-partnerships,248337
Here are two ideas, though any editor can take a look and see what merits inclusion.
Top of history section:
Possibly following first paragraph in history:
References supporting change: https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/raw-story-exploring-new-ways-to-build-audience-with-investigative-news-paywalls-and-partnerships,248337 https://www.rawstory.com/2007/03/soviet-era-compound-in-northern-poland-was-site-of-secret-cia-interrogation-detentions/
Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 ( talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)