User talk:HighKing/Archives/2020/December

TechCrunch

Hi HighKing - I wanted to share some thoughts about TechCrunch, since it's used in so many article, but didn't want to clutter up our already cluttered AfDs. (This can also apply to some other sources used for company articles that might be considered questionable, such as CrunchBase). Pinging scope_creep as well as another interested participant. I went to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and saw that there have already been discussions about TechCrunch, so no need to reinvent the wheel with a new open discussion there. (I even corrected a thinkprogress.org source that was mistakenly lumped in with the discussion archive. [[1]]) The archived discussions show a mix of sentiment that led to it being marked as a no consensus, which is the same as current Newsweek sources, Us Weekly and the NY Daily News. I think the disagreement comes from the nature of the PR process. There are too many companies and too few skilled journalists to follow them effectively to capture all the news without at least some guidance from the company's PR team. The PR process starts the ball rolling on lots of stories, but there's a clear difference between a simple cut and paste of a press release, where the web site sometimes doesn't even bother to remove the press release byline or even add a writer's name, versus taking it as a starting point and repurposing it with additional research to create a more in-depth article. It also depends on what is being sourced. If a company says "we have the most customers of any of our competitors" or "we're the market leader", I'd never include that info verbatim - I would write that they claimed to have the most or claimed to be the leader, making it clear that the info was unverified. Where I find these types of sources most useful is for uncontroversial info that is repeated in multiple independent sources, over time. I don't like to WP:OVERCITE since I hate the clutter, but if the game is skewed to reward the articles with more cites, that's what will happen. If you're interested, take a look at the fire hose of info that is submitted by companies to Business Wire. [[2]] Most of these company paid releases will never be repurposed into an actual article that will someday turn up as a source for a Wikipedia article. And I agree with both of you about the difference between verifiable versus notable. I'm trying to get better about not including non-encyclopedic info in articles, and spend a bit of time removing fluff from articles. One area I target is excessive lists of executives and board members, or even unsourced lists of model numbers, in the spirit of WP:NOTDIR. Going back to Crunchbase with one final thought - they are listed on the perennial sources list as deprecated, but that neglects to account for the difference between their reporting division [[3]], and the user generated directory content. In the middle is the compilation of funding history data, which appears to also be user generated, but is in my experience quite accurate and can almost always be independently validated with SEC filings. Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Timtempleton, to break down the issue we need to separate sources into two piles. The first pile are the sources to support the facts and claims in the article itself. These can come from many sources, including PR, interviews and financial records and other material produced by the company or a source connected to the company. A lot of what you're saying above comes from sources such as these. I am not disputing use of those sources for that purpose nor am I looking to dispute any of the claims or facts within the article.

The second pile are sources to establish the claim of notability. We examine these sources using WP:NCORP and as we've discussed, according to NCORP guidelines, those same sources that are perfectly OK to be used to support the facts and claims in the article are not OK to establish notability as they fail NCORP guidelines. From what I can gather, you are happy to expand the article by finding more sources so as to be able to make the article more complete by adding more information on the company. But what I and others are saying is that we still need to establish notability and for that we need sources of a different standard which we have not seen to date. I understand how the PR process works and how some newspapers or websites will take an announcement and reword it and publish an article, but the fact remains that these are simply re-using material produced by the company and fails the test for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. If you can point to an article that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject then that passes, but reworded PR/announcements/etc are not "original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" and the material is clearly attributable to a source affiliated with the topic company. This is the point where we do not appear to agree. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well said, and I completely understand where you are coming from. The difference in our interpretation of what’s happening is that there are way more press releases issued than could ever be picked up and re-purposed, which is why I wanted you to take a look at the Businesswire site. My indicator of notability is based on which company’s announcements are picked up. The media is sifting through them to help us. And any good PR person will tell companies not to waste their time pitching stories that aren’t going to be interesting to readers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I take issue with your statement My indicator of notability is based on which company’s announcements are picked up. This demonstrates to me that you are deliberately ignoring NCORP guidelines and pushing your own interpretation. If you have a problem with NCORP, the proper place to discuss is at NCORP Talk page and reach a consensus on any changes. Deliberately subverting AfD discussions is disruptive. There is an assumption of good faith at AfD discussions that editors understand the applicable guidelines and will debate/discuss accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments about other editors at AfD

A reminder that discussion at AfD should be about content not conduct. This kind of edit is, in my opinion, a borderline personal attack. It was also unnecessary for making your larger point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, not the right place at all. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)