Talk:Finnbay

Objectivity concerns

User:209.222.7.234 has been pushing for a rewritten version of the article, claiming that the previous version is not objective. However, the rewritten version of the article is really messy and hard to follow, so myself and User:Palosirkka have been reverting back to this version instead. Clearly, a compromise should be reached. What exactly are the points that 209.222.7.234 finds objectionable with the previous version? It would also be nice to hear what the article's creator (User:Teemu) thinks of this. --hydrox (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I found the longish edition of the User:209.222.7.234 odd and messy. It made me thing what he found bias or non objective but also what is his interest on the topic. Some of the references used are also very bias. --Teemu (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I am concerned that the IP user has a close relationship with this orgnisation. In this edit the user seems to indicate that they have represented Finnbay in some official capacity ("contact ansa Gabriel from marketing for confirm"). The user's editing history shows that they are constantly editing this page to make it more favourable for the organisation. --hydrox (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

hydrox suggestions

Add your suggestions here > do not attack and make sure that your suggestions comply with originality, objectivity and being independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 15:37, April 22, 2014‎

What exactly do you find objectionable about this revision of the article? I am happy with adding Finnbay's response to the controversy there. But I am not happy with the following points about this revision that you have been edit-warring for:

1. Claiming that Finnbay is a news agency without a source (1st paragraph)
2. Using synthesis of multiple sources to say that Finnbay gained repute by pointing out some mistake in the Time Magazine, while this was actually only mentioned in passing by Iltalehti (2nd paragraph).
3. Use of primary sources (3rd paragraph and section "Editorial anonymity"). I am okay with retaining these, but I do not think they are a quality of a good article.
4. Quoting Johan Bäckman, who is a well-known fringe theorist and extremely unreliable and inconsistent in his statements (section "Controversy").
5. Quoting Finnbay's (alleged?) partner publication (Novosti Helsinki) for an assessment about the organisation (section "Controversy").
6. Entirely omitting the independently and well-sourced paragraph about the missing contact details of the website and their lack of communication (section "Controversy").

--hydrox (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay this is good! I am going over all of them and will try to present you something that works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the current revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finnbay&oldid=605310208) and fixing it based on your concerns. Let's start from the first one: 1. I believe that you have a valid point here. Though they produce their own content as opposed to HT, FT and sell their content in library network and others through NewspaperDirect: http://about.pressreader.com/press-room/press-releases/2006/1228.html and http://www.pressreader.com/finland/finnbay So what do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

They are obviously a news website. I just can't think of a better term to describe their operation. --hydrox (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But it is different than a normal news website. HT or FT can't distribute it cause they don't produce their own material. AP, STT and YLE can because they produce their own content. They are actually distributing the content to other mediums. And that action is compatible with wiki's news agency definition: "A news agency is an organization that gathers news reports and sells them to subscribing news organizations, such as newspapers, magazines, and radio and television broadcasters." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess just about anyone can sign up to have their paper distributed through PressReader.[1] That's a distribution medium. But to actually be a news agency I would think that actual newspapers must pay you to get access to your news feeds. --hydrox (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No not "anyone" can sign up to have that. See their Finland coverage.. There are no blogs. Also it is your opinion of what a news agency is. Wiki definition should be taken as base. According to their website and one of the sources, they will be publishing a joint newspaper with novosti. But Ok, since we are having a dialogue here, I agree on dropping "news agency" word but we need to have a better title for them as opposed to "online news website". Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem with news website? It adequately describes the site. I can concede to calling them online newspaper, if we note that the website has no paper counterpart at least so far. --hydrox (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem on "news website" but Finnbay is not just news website. It doesn't correspond well. May I suggest "news service"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a synonym for news agency / wire service / press association.[2] --hydrox (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Barent observer uses it, I don't see it as a problem. According to Wiki definition Finnbay actually fits in but you still deny it and you don't want news agency name, then you need to find a way to compromise. It may sound like or not but it is not news agency. We don't have all day to research about linguistic issues. Finnbay provides news services to its subscribers and libraries. It is true. Your link explains as well: "an agency that gathers news stories for its members or subscribers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So by the same argument any news site that requires subscription is a news agency. But "subscriber" here means another news organisation, like newspapers or radio and television networks. Finnbay targets its subscription to Internet end consumers, not news organisations. To demonstrate that Finnbay is a news agency, I would at least require that you show me that several other newspapers have republished its reports. --hydrox (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. How about? "daily news magazine" then revisit this when we see them do print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Magazine, again, implies that they also have a printed version, which they lack so far. I don't understand what is the problem with calling them a news website. For example, CNET, ArsTechnica and TechCrunch are all multi-million dollar operations with large editorial staff, and they are all described as "news websites" or such on Wiki. Why do you insist on calling this much smaller website something else, while we both seem to agree that "news website" would characterise them quite well in their current form? Can you honestly say you really don't have an agenda of promoting this website? --hydrox (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it is not just news website as it has directories, dating etc. No I'm not affiliated with them I am just bothered by your hatred and "attacking edits". Anyways, let's both stay out of two-way accusations! I can settle with media website like Cnet and will be revisiting this if i see them in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine then, media website I am okay with. --hydrox (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. First one is down.

In relation to #2 and #3 I am okay with as they are now

In relation to #4 you say that "he is a well-known fringe theorist and extremely unreliable and inconsistent in his statements (section "Controversy")." This is very subjective - your own opinion. I insist on keeping that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 21:23, April 22, 2014‎

I am okay with keeping that part, and I do admit that my subjective assessment of Bäckman is very poor. However, we should not give readers the impression that Bäckman's view are in any way mainstream. --hydrox (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and I suggest keeping as it was put before since we have the "researcher Mika Aaltola" views section. (I believe) his views really dominate this wiki page and sound (mainstream). But I am okay with that, cause we should have both sides.

In relation to #5, I agree with you. I am okay with removing the part. Though I suggest changing "translating articles" part to something else like "content exchange" based on her comments in one of the sources you provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

All right, if it better reflects what she really said, I am all for it. --hydrox (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.

In relation to your final point #6. I agree with you that we must keep that part. I am okay with the whole paragraph except the way [only] this part is written, "The contact information of the website's domain registration is hidden behind a proxy service and the website does not mention the name of its editor-in-chief, although this is required by Finnish law for both web and print news. In addition, the street address listed on the publications contact page does not exist." This makes us (wiki writers) look like we attack them. It's like we vs. Finnbay and it only has accusations but not the response from Finnbay. I am not sold on the domain information. Everybody does that to prevent privacy. But the address and Chief of Editor points are very important! That's why I suggest rewriting it.

Draft: "Finnbay received several criticisms as the media website did not mention the name of its editor-in-chief, although this is required by Finnish law for both web and print news. In addition, the street address listed on the publication contact page does not exist. Later on Finnbay deleted the address and claimed that it did not give the original address on purpose for security reasons as they said, "We purposefully did not give the exact address on our website due to previous threats we received from anti-immigrant groups in Finland." Ref: http://www.finnbay.com/our-second-letter-to-the-finnish-ambassador-in-russia-hannu-himanen/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree on the content, though on a minor point I would maybe write the last phrase as "Finnbay however later deleted the invalid address and said that it did not want to reveal its physical address for security reasons due to having received threats from Finnish anti-immigration groups." --hydrox (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If I have any further additions in future, I will first consult you and I would appreciate if you do the same with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia is an open project and everything is always up to constructive discussion, and I am happy that we have been able to reach middle ground here. However, I must stress that editing from multiple accounts and edit warring with refusal to discuss will not be tolerated now or in future, as it only serves to alienate and distract all parties from building impartial and high-quality content. --hydrox (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Editorial anonymity -section?

I think the "Editorial anonymity" -section is problematic. The comparison to the Economist, that is considered to be reliable and high-quality media, is odd. I read this as some kind of justification of the Finnbay's practice. --Teemu (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already more or less a consensus for its removal above, so I've gone ahead. --hydrox (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Per above, I have re-edited that part - hydrox feel free to edit to make it sound better? This part I believe is important cause it is based on their letter and they note the Economist explicitly.