Talk:Cyber Discovery

Undisclosed Paid Editing tag

There doesn't seem to be any discussion here in relation to the Undisclosed Paid Editing tag added by User:Dsprc so I thought to open one. I'm not sure what the Undisclosed Payments Tag refers to in the current version of the page; past revisions seem like they might have some issues with WP:NPOV but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore from a quick read.

(As a disclosure and to explain my interest in the topic resurrecting this account, I was a participant in the scheme this page relates in the past, who stumbled across this and revived their old account - I plan on trying to improve it in the near future, as well as becoming more active.) VirtualKitten (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@VirtualKitten Article contributions are predominantly from (near-)SPA dropping content of dubious quality, neutrality, notability, PEACOCK, etc; bearing the lexicographic and behavioral hallmarks of typical COI SPA and likely UPE. At least one COI was declared by page creator, but lacking specificity of its nature. (I wandered here due to disruptions emanating from SANS Institute elsewhere on-wiki.)

"Participant" how – staff, the state, student? (please do not WP:DOX yourself)

Material is available in page history which may be helpful in refactoring the article. We need material reflecting what others have said about the subject, not the primary sourced brochure which existed previously.

Wishlist: Prior revisions lacked material which place and discuss the subject in context; such as impetus for creation, societal impact, society's perception of subject, etc. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating - I guess connecting those dots is something you pick up with experience!! If there's been a pattern elsewhere on the wiki that's really disappointing to hear and definitely warrants the critical approach towards other similar instances!

When mentioning I was a Participant, I'm referring to having been a student who experienced elements of the program at the time it was being delivered - I understand there might be some COI as a result despite the program now being defunct, and so I'm currently making a draft on a sandbox page (as seems to be recommended from my delve through policies?) and don't intend on putting it live here without at least a second opinion from someone more experienced and without any past association with the program.

Right now I'm relatively happy with the structure of the History section in the draft (just needs more detail) but I'm not sure if the Description section I've given is a little too specific or if it's actually useful.

Also, thank you for the suggestions/wishlist - I'll look for some sources that might help give insight into those, and hopefully work then into the draft during the coming days! Most sources I found while drafting seem to either be self-published (which isn't ideal), or are from gov.uk, which might offer insight into stated rationale and statistical impacts. VirtualKitten (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@VirtualKitten. Yes, it takes time to become that jaded. ;-)

Being a participant in this way doesn't raise major COI concerns – just be (moderately) mindful of WP:OR, and WP:RS, and it should be alright. (Most important policies to always follow are WP:IAR and WP:BOLD.) You don't have to draft – just start hacking.

Societal impacts. This places subject in context; and we also need such coverage to pass WP:GNG – wishlist is general guidance in this regard. gov.uk might be WP:PRIMARY in some circumstances. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)