User talk:凰兰时罗/Archives/2017/July

AnswerDash

[1] is a marketwire press release. AnswerDash's self-serving self-description was published unedited with zero fact-checking on Yahoo's end. It probably wasn't even read by a human being. The source could be allowable under WP:ABOUTSELF if the claims were toned down to pass points 1 and 2 in that subsection. The sources for the other statements I removed were similar. I checked each of them before I remove them. Nobody at those publishers fact-checked AnswerDash's claims about itself which makes them unusable as reliable sources. Furrykiller (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Furrykiller: First of all, how do you know that "nobody at those publishers fact-checked AnswerDash's claims" and "not even read by a human being"? I'm not so sure that such brand as, for example, Yahoo Finance would want to reprint any nonsense that they receive.
• Second, I agree that most of this information has come from the company itself. So have, for example, the birthdays of most people. People tell the dates to their biographers or interviewers who, in turn, publish articles or books that serve as reputable sources. So what? This is not a good reason for removal of such information, even without WP:ABOUTSELF, because the publication itself by a reputable publisher adds to a source's reliability.
• Third, I think we don't even have to argue about these items :). Per your own suggestion, the information could be toned down, rather than deleted, and I don't mind this at all. Please, attempt an edit that "tones down" these statements. I think this is the most construction course of action (definitely more constructive than deletion :) ). 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if they read it or not, but the byline is Marketwired, so we do know that they didn't write it or fact check it. The policy on self-published sources uses the phrase not unduly self-serving. I did not investigate all the article's sources, only the self-serving ones. I think it is unlikely a business would lie about when and where they were founded. But they might exaggerate claims like "the world's leading provider of contextual point-and-click answer technology" capable of "reduces the need of traditional customer support by 30 to 50 percent." if they thought they could get away with it. I'd like Wikipedia to be a place where they can not get away with it.

I did consider rewriting some of it instead. That's always the best remedy, although in this case I didn't see a way to do so usefully. Yahoo! Finance named AnswerDash calls themselves ″the world's leading provider of contextual point-and-click answer technology." while true to the source, seemed too pointless to include. Furrykiller (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Furrykiller: You know, I gave it another thought, trying to figure out how I'd tone it down myself. I now see your point, and I agree with you that most of what you deleted should be taken out. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow -- let me know what you think. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Thanks for taking another look. Furrykiller (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)