Talk:Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Writing style, possible COI, funding

The recent edits by 207.188.255.98 appear to have been made by someone who is much more familiar with the genre of advertising texts and press releases than with the sober, factual writing style of encyclopedias, and especially that of Wikipedia (cf. Wikipedia:neutral point of view).

Are you in any way affiliated or connected with the ITIF? If that is the case, please note our Conflict of interest guidelines and be aware that Wikipedia is not a free advertising space, have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations (especially the section "May I advertise my organization or its campaigns, products, services or leading individuals on Wikipedia?").

Information about the organization's funding was twice deleted without a satisfying explanation. Basic facts like funding are essential for an article like this, and it still lack (size of budget, number of employees? Even the seat of the organization is not given, although from the geolocation information for the IP 207.188.255.98 one might guess it is in the Washington DC area). On the other hand, fluffy lyrics about "the heart of America’s growing economic prosperity" etc. are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

About [1]: The page at [2] is under a CC-BY-NC license, which forbids commercial reuse and therefore does not allow to release the text under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, as required when inserting text into Wikipedia.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The funding information does not appear to be from a verifiable source and should be deleted or a new reference should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment does not make sense. The given source (a March 22, 2007 article by WTN News, quoting Michael Knetter, dean of the Wisconsin School of Business) can be verified by clicking on the link: http://wistechnology.com/articles/3795/

And would you mind answering my question above?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiable sources. This is a third party source cited in an unknown online publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability, thank you. You were claiming that this source is not verifiable, which is patently absurd. There is no policy against quotes from third parties either - quite the opposite: The fact that a comment has been quoted by an independent publication is usually seen as adding to the importance and credibility of the quoted statement. Do you regard Professor Knetter as a disreputable source? Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think Professor Knetter is a reputable source. I've never heard of Wistechnology.com or this professor. Who is he? How does he have any knowledge about the organization? The above contributor is using accusations from unheard of media outlets as a verifiable source. This language seems to be inserted intentionally to insert innuendo about the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 August 2010

Pending no response on this issue, this will be deleted.--Wotz3r (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that an anonymous Wikipedia editor is not familiar with the name of a source does not make it unreliable. Knetter is the dean of one of the highest ranked business schools, so he is certainly qualified as a commenter on business matters. If you want to dispute the veracity of his statement, please cite a reliable source disagreeing with it.

If Knetter, InformationWeek and Ars Technica are wrong, where does ITIF's funding come from instead?

And would you mind answering the question I asked you on your talk page, instead of deleting it without comment?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The text referenced has been re-written and consolidated to eliminate the "fluff." I see no problems with the re-writes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.96.7 (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Press releases vs. independent sources

About this edit: Apparently there is still a contributor to this article who has difficulties in understanding the difference between an encyclopedia and a forum for promotional texts based on press releases. - HaeB (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a very passive aggressive and petty statement to write. The text that was added is not promotional, just factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 August 2010

Wikipedia articles should be based on independent reliable sources, not on press releases and other self-published sources.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit sad to see that edits from this IP address continue to exhibit this kind of problem, now in the article about the organization's president (see Talk:Robert D. Atkinson#Promotional editing). Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced information

Instead, tag the references with {{fv}} (the reference fails verification), {{rs}} (the reference may not be a reliable source), {{self-published inline}} (the reference is self-published), or {{better source}} (the reference is a primary source, but a better source is needed). Then we can discuss them here. --Ronz (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and POV

Users Ronz and HaeB continue to post inaccurate, anonymous, and dubious data about this organization and threaten users who attempt to correct the record. Please stick to facts and keep these articles balanced. A NPOV and accurate, non-politically biased representations is what makes Wikipedia useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotz3r (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply restoring sourced information. If you dispute the information or the sources, clearly state why rather than edit-warring and repeatedly blanking information that you personally don't like.

Criticism sections are inappropriate per WP:STRUCTURE as I indicated in my edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to use of due and undue weight per WP:STRUCTURE which you claim you are familiar with. Your constant attacks on other editors and reverting of legitimate changes will not be tolerated. You should rename the section if you disagree with the subtitle rather than remove it. --Wotz3r (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your changes to the article are a step in the right direction. Your comments here are not. Please learn to focus on improving the article, assume good faith of others, and just plain WP:CHILLOUT. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are coming around to my point of view. I encourage you to continue to stay away from threats and online bullying. I agree that it is best for all to focus on making the article better and more accurate. --Wotz3r (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Funding information

User User:Ronz seems to be unfamiliar with the fact that funding information for non-profits is always self-reported. Deleting funding information for organization is unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. See WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You need to re-read WP:SELFPUB. There is no reason to exclude this funding information. Is there a specific objection you have? Please point to something specific rather than deal in generalities. --207.188.255.98 (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears this article is being used as a means to distribute press releases, in violation of WP:SELFPUB, WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV. Find and independent source to demonstrate it's worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows an article to reference self-published data as sources about the subject. If you cannot give specific reasons why this funding data should not be included, then do not delete these additions. --207.188.255.98 (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Try another WP:DR option. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can't defend your actions, then don't complain when others restore the items you delete. --207.188.255.98 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Regarding funding and support: simply because a fact has a date does not relegate it to "history." For example, one could put "publications" in history since those would have dates also. If it is information about funding and support, it can belong in a "funding and support" or similar section. The only information about the founding relates to the trade association. Every non-profit organization in the U.S. will have funding grants at startup. This is fair, and may belong in "history," but I believe the article would read better if it was also in the funding and support section along with the NY Times information. I am willing to work on this -- no edit warring please. --Brycehughes (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Made two edits in the “funding and support” section: 1) Reworded the first sentence. Quoting the article saying “Big IT vendors … establishing their own think tank” strikes me as a tad ad hominem and non-encyclopedic, probably owing to the significant edit war that this page experienced last year (let me guess: editors supporting net neutrality vs. net non-neutrality supporters?). Rephrased by simply saying that the organization’s founding was funded by the IT lobby. As with other organizations that are funded by corporate moneys, Wikipedians can read this info and then judge for themselves. 2) Moved publication-specific skepticism to the “publications” section, as it jibes more with potential problems in specific publications than it does with revealing any new information about funding and support. Also rephrased to reflect the nuances in the criticisms, without deleting the originally quoted skepticism. - Brycehughes (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the board member listing from the "Funding and Support" section. I had originally added it in but had since been feeling guilty about it, because just referencing the board page isn't really evidence of any actually funding and support. I realize that it is probably a fair assumption that Intel, for example, gave them money, but I doubt this assumption would hold with MIT. In any case, it's not Wikipedia's role to assume, so until there is a solid reference for actual funding, I'm uncomfortable with it. Once that was done, I noticed that there really wasn't much sourced info left in the "Funding and Support" section. So I combined it into one sentence and then integrated it into the "History" section.I removed the "Digital Road to Recovery" paper from the "Publications" section, because it doesn't appear to be a major publication, at least not according to their website, and thus doesn't qualify for that section. The corresponding criticism from Ars Technica seemed pretty minor, so I figured it's not that important. But feel free to add this back in if it's important to anyone. I added information to the "Publications" section about their publication's role in the SOPA and PIPA arguments. I also added the information about this annoying their supporters (which seems a tad ironic, given this page's history). - Brycehughes (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I had tracked down a lot more funders, but this information began to dominate the History section, so I moved it to a separate "Funders" section. I also edited it so it wasn't one giant sentence and the refs were easier to follow. The remaining information in the history section wasn't really history and was more about the leaders of the organization, so I renamed the section "Leadership." I deleted the sentence about the FCC Chairman announcing Universal Service Reform at the ITIF event, because this seems to relate more to USR rather than ITIF. I also made some clarity edits and fixed a couple refs. - Brycehughes (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)