This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
144 Edward Street, Brisbane is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
AliceAdela (talk·contribs) has been paid by Precision Group, probably, on behalf of unknown. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Active one day, Feb 2 2016. WP:SPA per contribs for this article.
I have tagged this article for COI. See the tag above as well. The creator and major contributor is one of a nest of very likely paid editors working for Precision Group. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Precision_Group. The article needs to be reviewed carefully for NPOV (especially including omitted negative information) and valid sourcing by independent editors before the tag is removed. If you remove, please make a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to raise some concerns about the use of this very new Template:Disclosed paid (was Template:DPE) based on the stated reasoning for this template. Firstly Wikipedia:DISCLOSEPAY lists a number of ways to disclose paid editors, a statement on the article's talk page is just one of them. There is no requirement to put anything on the article itself. Paid editing does not necessarily imply doing the wrong thing; it is conflict-of-interest edits by paid people (or indeed unpaid people) that are worrying (but still not totally prohibited). Many GLAM contributors are paid editors and are covered by WP:CURATOR provided their potentially COI edits relate to their collections than than the organisation itself. So there are many paid editors who are following the rules and there is no need for anything on the article itself. Second, I think the template gives the misimpression that it is only paid editors who have contributed. The other templates mentioned above make it clearer that the paid editing is not the whole article and that it may or may not be a problem in terms of NPOV etc. In relation to this article, certainly it was initially created by what does appear to be a paid editor, but it has been subsequently been edited by a number of other contibutors (and I see no allegation they were paid). Is there any reason to believe that today the article is not notable, factually incorrect, biased, or other concerns given that others have now worked over the article? If it is thought not notable, propose it for deletion on those grounds. If the article is thought not factually correct, remove or tag the specific material. I don't see having it on the article itself is in any way helpful to the reader, the person we seek to serve since it is not making a statement of article quality but a statement about how it was (in part) developed - a topic normally dealt with on Talk pages not on the article itself. I suggest the use of this template needs to be discussed in a wider forum such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) before proceeding. Kerry (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Precision has sent paid editors who have socked to affect every article about Precision properties and wasted a shitload of editor time, including mine. I didn't put the Paid tag on the article but I do not object to it.
If you want the tag removed, spend the time to carefully review the article, search for other sources to ensure that this article is not omitting negative information, and make sure the article is high quality. Say so here in the Talk page, and get consensus that the article is OK, and then it would make sense to remove the tag. In the meantime readers have a right to know that they are looking at something that is likely to be PR - a hijacked page in WP, and not a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern relates to the use of this specific new tag rather than other existing tags for this purpose. I agree entirely about the time wasted by paid editors who are engaging in COI edits. I feel that this new tags only describes a part of the process by which this article came to exist and doesn't really tell the reader anything helpful from their perspective. I deliver talks and edit training in relation to Wikipedia and I am well aware that most of the people actually believe that the bulk of Wikipedia is written by paid people (in the sense of being paid by Wikipedia). While most (although not all) are aware that anyone can contribute, they think this is not the way the bulk of content comes about. They are very surprised to know I am a volunteer despite having written thousands of articles. So telling readers that a paid editor was involved isn't any warning to them to be careful about article quality if they expect it to be mostly written by paid people. At least the existing tags provide some warning to the reader that there's some concern about the article itself. Tags on the article are a means of communicating with readers and need to give commentary from that perspective. Tags on talk pages are directed at contributors and can talk about the matter differently. Kerry (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
