User talk:Wikiwag/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

COI? POV?

Please allow me to assure you that this was not an edit neutralizing POV.

Let the readers draw their conclusions. Please give a careful read to wp:COI and wp:NPOV and wp:SYNTH and consider your edits carefully. I would give this advice to the other editor (or editors), but have no forum to do so, and I fear it would be pointless: my assumption of good faith is strained.

It is clear that some content simply does not belong in the article (the nastiness in pseudo-english, the hate sites), but I call on you and ask you to edit with great caution. If this request is unwelcome, please accept my apology, and let me know, and I will not post to you directly again.

The article, and the school, are clearly under attack by individuals who appear to have strong opinions about the school. Schools are often hated by some of their students. Clearly, it is being defended by an individual who appears to have strong opinions about the school. I don't. I am not perfect, and my edits may be unhelpful, but I most certainly am neutral.- Sinneed 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You may safely answer me here, if you wish, as I am watching the page.- Sinneed 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. It gets under my skin that these people have no idea whom they're addressing. For all anyone knows, I could be among the members of The Joint Commission who accredited the school, or the Delaware County Director of Social Services, or the D.A. I will make you a promise that I will be civil and make every attempt to be constructive and despite any alleged bias, to take far more caution toward NPOV than those seeking to commit the proverbial hatchet job. I've demonstrated this at length, and have demonstrated it by my silence these past two weeks.

But, I frankly see no reason why - simply because these same people do not have the courtesy to abide by the rules of the road - it is any less proper for me to edit in retrograde, drawing from the same sources that they themselves present, if for no other reason than they too must exercise caution. That is not a crime. And, to the extent that I may perhaps go to far, I know I can count on you to keep things on an even keel. You won't offend me, because I respect WP and you as an editor; I cannot say the opposition feels likewise.

As is often said in the legal profession: they opened the door. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• ahem* - entirely in a friendly and cautionary-humor-intended fashion: "If Bobby jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" - Don't jump, it's a trap. :) - Sinneed 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not jumping. Walking the brink perhaps, but not jumping. ;-) - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am shocked by reading these things that are being discussed about the article on the Family Foundation School. I do appreciate your interests in the article and keeping it accurate, but I have an issue with saying the "opposers" of the school hate the school. There was congressional testimony of abuse at the family foundation school and a press release from the family school on the suicide there, and if these are not RS, then I do not know what is. I do feel strongly about showing the other side of the school which the other editors on here do not seem to care about but I think its inclusion is important to the article. I really hope that we can all understand that the school's enrollment has decreased significantly since the congressional testimony and they have made statements to the press that alumni were not telling the truth about the abuse.

Maybe FFS has so many things wrong with it that all of the content will not be able to be included in the WIKI article, but I think the main points and abuse allegations from over 50 alumni is really important to include in the article...really important. Thanks for your time reading this and keeping an eye on the validity of the FFS article, but I hope that we all can come to a fair and neutral consensus about this article so that its not just showing what FFS is releasing. With respect, thank you. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Flyboi9: I share the sentiment. Though I must confess that over time I have become a proponent of the school, I am by no means above pointing out its flaws. The revelations that have taken place over the past 18 months have been a source of consternation and concern for me, as well. I have gone to great pains to remain as neutral as is reasonable, which is why I will never arbitrarily delete something that it properly sourced, from a reliable source. It was not I that labeled the Truth campaign a hate site. Let us be honest though, when the campaign takes light-hearted road trip banter and pulls quotes out of context as they did with the "Mike Lossicco Chronicles," that strains the limits of credibility and good journalism, and is objectively dishonest. One cannot fight what one seeks to overcome, by employing the practices one is criticizing. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus on content on article talk pages

Here again, you are pursuing predictions about the future, questions about the philosophy of WP. I encourage you to read wp:five pillars with an eye toward what WP is, wp:consensus with an eye toward when content about a subject lends wp:UNDUE weight to one view. Please give a read to wp:BALANCE.

This is a gentle warning. Please do not misunderstand. You are not focusing on content. You are not proposing changes, and explaining the merits of the change in terms of WP guidelines. You are explaining why you don't wp:LIKE the additions and the trend of the article. You are focusing on the posters and their motivations. You are focusing on the school.

Please give a careful read to wp:COI. Our focus here is ENTIRELY the encyclopedia: the presentation of the knowledge we gather and rewrite into our own words from the generally wp:reliable sources available to us.

The purpose of limiting the content of a single article is to keep unrelated junk out... not because of its impact to the subject... but because of its impact on those seeking knowledge about the subject. - Sinneed 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I would appreciate an answer to my question: at what point does the article become less about the subject than the criticism and become WP:Undue? - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my answer to your question.- Sinneed 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I must be missing the answer somewhere in the rebuke. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 13:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FFS

Be assured that FFS is on my watchlist -- as is Sinneed's talk page. He's one of two people whom I valued as collaborators who have left Wikipedia recently. Fortunately, there's been rather little activity at FFS recently. Meanwhile, I've recently gotten involved with the article that spawned the controversy that appears to have precipitated Sinneed's departure. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. I'll miss him, too. And...wow...good luck on the other article. I thought this one was dramatic! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 10:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Family Foundation School

Hi, did you realise you also undid my edit when reverting to that version? I take it you're going to redo my edit, or provide some reasoning? Widefox; talk 17:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. Yes, I'll take care of it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)