Talk:Culture24

Brighton Low‑importance

	East Sussex portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Could somebody help me to update the Culture24 page?

I work at Culture24, and I'd like to add some updated information about what we do. I'm declaring my interest now, and I'd like to do this openly. What would be the right way to make changes? Should I post links / text here and ask somebody else to make the changes in the article, if they think it's appropriate? If anyone could give me some advice, that'd be great. Thanks very much, RosieClarke (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to add links to the Charity Commission's info about Culture24 (http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1085847&SubsidiaryNumber=0), and Culture24's place in the MLA's digital agenda (http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/digital)? RosieClarke (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI does not ban interested parties from editing articles, provided it is done in accord with wikipedia policies. See WP:V + WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Model articles on educational institutions can be found at Wikipedia:FA#Education to give you an idea of what to aim for. Better than just adding links is to extract the relevant information and use the link as a reference. See WP:REFB for how to do this. Avoid "promotional" language: see WP:PEACOCK and vague claims per WP:WEASEL. Material should be derived from secondary sources, although the institution's own material can be used for non-contentious material, such as date founded, budget etc. It should be an informative encyclopedia article about the subject, not sounding as if it's written by the subject. I suggest you go ahead with adding material. If problems arise, then discuss them with the relevant editor(s) to reach an understanding about things. Ty 09:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your suggestions - will follow up on these references and have a go at updating our entry tomorrow. Cheers! RosieClarke (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I'm Ruth - also working at Culture24. I've made a few factual revisions as there was a bit of outdated info on there. Like Rosie, I'm keen to be open about what I'm doing here and the changes I'm making: The aim is to make the information more complete and more useful - so please let me know if it's coming over as PR puffery.

I'm not sure where to look to verify our stats as they're drawn from (unpublished) log files. Any suggestions would be welcome - could always remove the reference to visitor numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruharper (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to write the article as though you have no personal knowledge of the subject. Look for sources that are published, read what is in those sources and use that information (paraphrasing to avoid copyright violation). If info can't be found in a source, then it can't be used. I suggest you post the stats on your site: then you can use that as a reference for the stats. Otherwise, they should be removed. Without this policy anyone could post anything on wikipedia and say, "I know it's true". Wikipedia is based on verification, not truth. Look at some of these featured articles to see the ideal result: Wikipedia:FA#Education. Ty 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

"using Culture24 as one of its partners in furthering the council's digital agenda" is rather vague. It would be helpful for the reader to be more specific about this liaison. Ty 10:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of clarity would be useful? A link to the the digital agenda policy document on the MLA site, or a more detailed account of the actual work we do - or something else? User:ruharper —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not a link. Content. A more detailed account, provided the details are in a source which can then be used as a reference to validate the information. Ty 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also changed the intro paragraph - Culture24 the entity is a publisher; it just so happens that one of our sites shares the name. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruharper (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Information is needed about the date of its founding, financial statistics, number of staff, names and positions of senior staff, and how it has been covered in e.g. newspapers, etc. Guidance for content: a) must be taken from published sources (including print) b) should be presented in an objective, factual way c) commendatory (or other) reactions can be include, if clearly attributed to the source, not wikipedia editorial d) material should be referenced inline. Ty 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ty, thanks again for your suggestions to improve this entry - I'm coming back to this now a few months later and trying to meet these criteria as I add more info. If you have a moment, would you mind having a look at the changes I've made and letting me know if they make sense and the references are OK, or whether I need to rephrase anything? Thanks very much! --RosieClarke (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Culture24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120132846/http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_10011029 to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_10011029

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]