Talk:Association of Professional Futurists

Hello, members of the APF!

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you are new to Wikipedia, we encourage you to learn more about Wikipedia, its good work, its culture , and policies. We hope that you will join the community. We understand that you may feel keen to edit the APF page. Please note that there are possible conflict of interest issues with members of organization editing their organization's Wikipedia page; and that such issues that are taken seriously by the Wikipedia community. A good understanding of Wikipedia policies, norms, and values will be very helpful to you. For instance, please see Plain and simple conflict-of-interest guide , Five Pillars of Wikipedia, Notability , What Wikipedia is Not. There are many other helpful policy pages on Wikipedia as well. Other Wikipedians may be offering constructive criticism and you should seek help from them - you may also want to check-in with the members of WikiProject Futures Studies who are especially interested in futures-related pages like this one. John b cassel (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Third-party article about the APF

First of all, let me say that while I know APF members, I am not myself an APF member and consider myself neutral to discussing matters of APF notability. Here is a third party article that includes a significant mention of the APF that I think would be appropriate to include on this page to demonstrate a bit of notability: Wired article about Foresight --John b cassel (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

untitled

Development of this page by content matter experts has been denied by one editor of Wikipedia despite no fewer than three requests for the article to be reverted to its development format. The denial appears to be in breach of the Goodwill guidelines of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF and their actions may even be an attempt to skirt around the 3RR provisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule. The enhancements to the original stub included references to independent 3rd parties, expansion of activities and alignment to processes of other associations' activities and a framing structure that attempted to shift the original stub from what was somewhat advertorial in tone, to one of a more complete structure. Requests for a reversion to the editor in question have met with denial and petty claims of 'manipulation'. Requests for an oversight period of two weeks to enable multiple users to enhance the article have been denied. Requests to allow subject matter experts to add to the stub in order to bring it up to an acceptable standard have been denied. The page is now unable to be edited - I believe the Wikipedia editor who has deliberately impeded the progress of this article is engaged in an early stage of edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Marcus Barber MarcusBarber (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is the editor in question? Which 3 requests? Where was the page protected?Curb Chain (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question is Jeraphine Gryphon - requests clearly stated in this message thread. Jeraphine has since answered with what might be described as petulant. I would certainly describe it as lacking maturity but do flag that I am biased. Here's the message thread wherein I indicated that there were many people ready to try to improve the page and a request for input into why the decision was made to strip the page back to a stub. Instead I was offered one fraction as the reason. Rather than advise that the line might have been questionable, everything else got ripped out in what is best a heavy handed approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeraphine_Gryphon&oldid=492556016#Association_of_Professional_Futurists Desiredfutures (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

article's a mess - COI?

This blog - futureofmuseums.blogspot.com - is being used as an RS. Don't think so! Also, the whole thing reads almost like a promotion/advert. This needs to be addressed beyond just tagging it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the main thing it needs is some more third party articles, and then the integration of those articles into the content. The challenge is like any very successful professional organization of a small, closely-knit profession. Consider "The Association for Sustainable Concrete Sales Channels". It might change the sales channels for concrete in profound ways, yet be very difficult to establish through outside sources. It's even worse for foresight since its so abstract. John b cassel (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Association of Professional Futurists. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519082338/http://www.profuturists.org/mifwhistory to http://www.profuturists.org/mifwhistory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219195839/http://www.thefutureoffutures.com:80/ to http://www.thefutureoffutures.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Major Revision 2018 Jan 13

set |needhelp=<How to prompt Category review, mid- to high importance?>

Ok, Wikipedians, I followed Drmies private (talk) 6 January 2018 to improve this article by citing additional secondary sources. I added 12 citations from peer-review journals that have debated the ethics, competencies and professionalism of futurists over the past 25 years. I removed all internal or self-promoting blog links, which addressed the "Multiple Issues" critique from 2012 to 2016. I also added a section on "Competency Model" to enlarge the article's scope and proportion. How would I prompt an external review to judge whether this article ranks a promotion to high- from mid-importance in Futures studies?

Cheers, - Jay (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)