Talk:Royal National Institute of Blind People
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal National Institute of Blind People article.|
|WikiProject Disability||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Organizations||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I made some significant changes to the RNIB's entry the other day that were then changed back. I'm not sure why!
I work as the senior web editor for RNIB, and thought it would be useful to improve RNIB's stub entry. I've used our current website, annual review and other information (all of it in the public domain) to present an up to date, accurate and useful entry for the organisation.
I took out reference to Galloway Society for the Blind, as it seemed unfair to promote one local society over another. If that's bothered someone, please let me know and we can discuss it.
If you'd like to discuss any other aspects of the content please do.
I hope whoever changed the new content back will understand that, as someone who works for RNIB, I want the charity to be presented as completely and professionally as possible.
- The policies that that could be infringed by a large article authored by the subject are WP:NOT and WP:V, especially that “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. The specific issue of self-published material is dealt with under WP:COI, although this does not entirely rule out doing so. There is also the issue of WP:NPOV.
- There have been various articles created from time to time that are strongly in praise of (or against) their subjects, sometimes to the point of adopting the first person, and have to be taken down or changed significantly. However, this page is somewhat different in that a) there is no case against the RNIB to discuss b) the page at the moment is informative rather than “in praise of” and c) the page that was replaced didn’t have third-party sources besides other blindness organisations. There is also the fact that primary sources (the organisation’s own statements) are likely to be more accurate than outside ones with regard to policies etc. So it may be possible to allow most of what has been added subject to outside sources being added later, but with regard to the quantity of information about programmes, I would want to compare what has been done for other voluntary organisations. Finally, the other society was Galloway’s (after someone with that name) not Galloway. Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi,I've added more third party references to support the text. I think some references are appropriate to linked to RNIB, e.g. annual report, detail about RNIB's aims/mission/areas of work etc. Can anyone help out with other suggestions of how the article could be improved? Any references I've missed? Thanks. Kat384 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)