Talk:Consumer Reports: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2014;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:02, 24 July 2018

New York (state): Hudson Valley Start‑class Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance).

Magazines Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

	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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

bluerasberry (talk · contribs)

Reform of this article and Consumers Union

I work for Consumer Reports as Wikipedian in residence. Some people may be aware that the Wikipedia community has had problems for a long time with editors with conflicts of interest. I am disclosing my work affiliation to reduce problems.

Right now, there are Wikipedia articles for two organizations here - Consumer Reports and Consumers Union. Since I work here, I have insight that Consumers Union was the former publisher of the magazine called Consumer Reports, but now the organization goes by the name "Consumer Reports" when publishing Consumer Reports, and leaves the name "Consumers Union" mostly for its advocacy activities which are managed in an arm of the organization. There are no articles for the organization's products, including a publication called Consumer Reports. I think I would like to propose that there be an article for Consumer Reports and all its related organizations, like Consumers Union, then another article for all publications of the organizations.

To do this, I would propose to make an article, Consumer Reports, which gives information about the organization. The article Consumers Union would redirect to this. Then I would make an article Consumer Reports (publication) in which any information about the organization's publications could be placed. I might like to do this while adding no information to the articles, but rather to execute this only by dividing the existing information in these articles.

I would do this under the premise that there is no question of the notability of either the organization or its main publication, as both have been discussed enough to meet notability criteria. The organizations "Consumer Reports" and "Consumers Union" are independently notable also, but I feel that it would be less confusing to just have an article for the organization, and then another for products until and unless there is a reason to fork content and make sub articles.

I am just thinking for now. Honestly I do not like the idea of having conflict of interest discussions and would like to be hands-off, but on the other hand, I like my organization a lot and wish to share information about it in so far as it gives others insight about what we are doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks without a response to your thoughtful proposal, Lane. How is Jimbo's "Bright Line Rule" working for you? - 2001:558:1400:10:F835:FA27:C3CE:2934 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blue Rasberry. While I believe I fully understand your background information, I am not sure I understand completely what you are proposing. It seems to me that articles should be as follows:

Consumers Reports (organization) - publisher of the Consumer Reports magazine, performer of testing, and the organization that took on the activities related to its flagship maganize (except for advocacy activities)
Consumers Reports (magazine) - the magazine itself
Consumers Union - the advocacy arm of the Consumers Reports organization

Any objections? Did I miss something in your proposal? Mercy11 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mercy11. I propose to merge Consumers Union into Consumer Reports then make Consumers Union a redirect to Consumers Reports, which is different from your 3-article description. After a merge, I propose to make a new article, Consumers Reports (publication), by taking all information in the merged Consumer Reports article which is about publications and putting it into its own article. Right now both articles contain information about both the organizations and the publications, and I propose to separate the existing content into separate articles for each.

I think that separate articles for Consumer Reports and Consumers Union are unnecessary as they are mostly the same organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually simpler to create a new article than to merge articles. While your concern that the two existing articles, Consumers Union and Consumer Reports, both contain some information that actually belongs in the other article, accomplishing that is a simple matter of moving blocks of information from one to the other, whereas merging articles generally requires a more tedious merge proposal process. BTW, what you call Consumer Reports (publication) is what I have been calling Consumer Reports (magazine), and although I don't personally have any particular preference for either one, I believe the (magazine) disambiguation qualifier may be more common practice than the (publication) qualifier in Wikipedia (and it is also more specific than "publication" so you may want to think about that too). To avoid confusion, here is what I had proposed above but with more detail (as well as a spelling corrections):

Consumer Reports (organization) - publisher of the Consumer Reports magazine, performer of testing, and the organization that took on the activities related to its flagship maganize (except for advocacy activities) ; this article title would be a new article
Consumer Reports (magazine) - the magazine itself ; this article title already exists (Note: we put article titles for articles about publications (magazines, books, newspapers, etc) in italics, and the current article correctly shows this already)
Consumers Union - the advocacy arm of the Consumers Reports organization ; this article title already exists

Note I say "article title" instead of "article". Since the article location accuracy contents of the articles are currently in question, I didn't want to create potential confusion by inadvertedly giving the impression I was approving of the textual contents of the articles as consistent with/for the current article title.

BTW, independent of the herein discussion, I noticed that the Consumers Union lede has not been updated to reflect the fact that such name is now for the advocacy group only and not for the parent organization of the Consumer Reports magazine, which is what I understand you have been saying. That update should had been done years ago, but apparently the article doesn't have many editors watching it - or was simply overlooked - so it hadnt been done.

Finally, there is an aticle named Consumers' Research that should also be looked at and possibly considered in this discussion to ensure any proposed overhaul (as well as any text content updates) is thorough. Mercy11 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mercy11. The name of this organization is not easy to understand even for people who work here, so I understand that it would be difficult for anyone else to understand either. Even people in my own organization would disagree with what I am proposing, and many would support what you are proposing. It is my opinion that no reliable sources conclusively sort this out either.

About CR (magazine) versus CR (publication) - as best I can tell there is no guidance on Wikipedia for what to do when a publication exists both as a website and a magazine. CR has been a magazine since the 1930s. Since sometime in the 2000s the subscriptions to the website surpassed the circulation of the magazine, but from the perspective in house the magazine and the website are similar publications. On Wikipedia I thought it would be excessive to have Consumer Reports (magazine) and Consumer Reports (website) as separate articles even though both could individually meet notability criteria and be very short articles about the same writings. Beyond the main publication, the organization publishes books, subscription newsletters, The Consumerist, and independent journalism which may not be part of the magazine or website, which is why I thought to just group all publications together as CR (publication) so that there could be one article listing anything published. Some comparable examples might be National Geographic (magazine), which I feel also is less a magazine and increasingly an online publication, and Wired (website) and Wired (magazine), which are two articles which I think are about the same publication.

About CR the organization versus Consumers Union - the organizations share a budget, staff, offices, publications, management, and everything else that different departments of an organization might share. The biggest confusion is that the originally everything was named Consumers Union and the magazine was named Consumers Union Reports. Later the magazine name was shortened to Consumer Reports, but the org did not legally change its name. Many people started calling the organization Consumer Reports because that is its public face because of the magazine. A few years ago the organization "Consumers Union" changed its doing business as name to "Consumer Reports". However, especially in legal issues, the organization sometimes goes by Consumers Union.

If there were separate articles on Consumer Reports (organization) and Consumers Union then they would either be copies of each other, as most information, history, and projects that one does the other one does also, or otherwise the Consumers Union article would continually refer to the other. It is not clear to me what activities are solely managed by Consumer Reports and which are managed by Consumers Union, which is why I suggested to merge the articles. I could be wrong, as I said, and even most people in this organization would want to have two articles. The best reason I have for merging is that I cannot identify a reliable source which makes a distinction between the work of the organizations. CU does lobbying and advocacy, but based on the research and publications of CR. I would not know how to differentiate them.

The reason why I say that Consumer Reports should be the main article and just be called Consumer Reports is because as best I can tell, most reliable sources about Consumer Reports are discussing positions and work of the organization. In the current article drafts there is no information about the organization which does not apply to both CR and CU. Except in the few instances of proper names used as brands, all instances of either "Consumer Reports" or "Consumers Union" are interchangeable, as both CR and CU often use the name of the other.

About Consumers' Research - Consumers Union/Consumer Reports was founded by staff who quit Consumers' Research in 1936. They were early rivals and share some interesting stories but are different organizations with distinct histories.

What you propose is not wrong and is backed by some sources, but especially with the recent name change of Consumers Union to Consumer Reports, older sources which use the name Consumers Union are referring to what now is Consumer Reports.

Thanks for your time and consideration. I regret that I could not be more concise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"as best I can tell there is no guidance on Wikipedia for what to do when a publication exists both as a website and a magazine...On Wikipedia I thought it would be excessive to have Consumer Reports (magazine) and Consumer Reports (website)." We generally do not have separate articles for printed vs. online sites of same publication. What we do is to have a section about the online site within the text of the print publication's article. On, "The best reason I have for merging is that I cannot identify a reliable source which makes a distinction between the work of the organizations. CU does lobbying and advocacy, but based on the research and publications of CR. I would not know how to differentiate them." If the CR/CU website states this, then this would not be a problem since the CR/CU website is considered a WP:RS as it falls under the WP:SPS exception, and thus we could cite their site. On, "especially with the recent name change of Consumers Union to Consumer Reports, older sources which use the name Consumers Union are referring to what now is Consumer Reports." I don't see this being a problem either: we can just say so in both articles. For example, we could say things like "In February 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration mandated the use of seat beats for all vehicles in the United States, thanks to the efforts of the Consumer Reports, then known as Consumers Union." In any event, there can be some information repeated in both articles, but the majority of the information in the articles should be different (i.e., specific to the article's subject). BTW, I modified the lede to the Consumers Union article; did you get a chance to see it? Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to talk. Even I am confused.

I think that as you say Consumer Reports (magazine) is best, and what I said about Consumer Reports (publication) is not best. I agree with you that the precedent on Wikipedia is that if a publication starts as a magazine, it is usual to group all of its other publications in the magazine article. The magazine is the most famous product of Consumer Reports and if there is intent to avoid forking off other publication articles unless necessary, and specifically including the website in this magazine article, then using the magazine article as the hub for everything seems best.

This is the only mention anywhere so far as I know, that Consumers Union changed its name to Consumer Reports. What you wrote in the Consumers Union article is a thoughtful explanation which I would think is what most people would imagine if they checked available sources - sources seem to say Consumers Union is independent from Consumer Reports. You say "Consumers Union created a spin off company named Consumer Reports", which can probably be backed by reliable sources but it has never been correct. There was no additional organization founded. There is one organization, or if there are other organizations, I think they all share common infrastructure and intend to have the same public face. Consumers Union is doing business as Consumer Reports and suing business as Consumers Union. I could be wrong about this, and there are people here who would not even want me talking about this and I do not know the official organizational position, but as best I can tell there is nothing that Consumer Reports and Consumers Union do not share except some legal use of different names. If the name "Consumers Union" were replaced with "Consumer Reports" in every instance it is written in the Consumers Union article and vice versa, then both articles would still be correct except in the parts about name changes and any parts about names on legal documents. This is why I thought to merge the articles.

I am not sure what is correct or what the brand is as defined in reliable sources. I just asked around a bit and some people, apparently, get paid by Consumers Union here rather than Consumer Reports. I do not know what to say. You say " the majority of the information in the articles should be different specific to the article's subject" but I do not see information in either which does not apply to both. Even in lawsuits both are involved. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to suggest that Consumer Reports (CR) and Consumers Union (CU) are independent entities. Indeed, the CR article had avoided any mention of CU until, without explanation, one appeared about halfway through the article. I just modified the introduction (hopefully correctly) to indicate that CR is, indeed, published by CU. I did this based on the last page of my current print issue of CR, which includes basic, standard information about the magazine (e.g., price, , permissions, postmaster instructions). Here, it is stated, "Consumer Reports [ISSN #] is published monthly ... by Consumers Union of U.S., Inc...." [emphasis is mine.] Taken at face value, this statement within each issue of CR suggests that CU is its publisher. Unfortunately, the Consumer Union's website itself seems to be somewhat schizophrenic about the relationship between CR and CU. No wonder the rest of us are confused, too. Perhaps CU/CR should take a cue from the advice it often gives within the pages of CR by clarifying how the two entities are related in a way that most consumers can understand. Drbb01 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Dispute/Possible Arbitration

I've heard recently there's an ongoing labor dispute at Consumer Reports because they've closed ShopSmart Magazine and laid off 11 union workers without any kind of warning. The NY Guild is talking about how they might be possibly brought to arbitration. Is this worth noting in the wikipedia article? It has been been reported and confirmed by many reputable sources, including the NY Post. 72.89.42.58 (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is. If you are with the NY Newspaper Guild then message me and I can arrange for Wikipedians to present at the guild hall about this and any other labor issues. Lots of Wikipedians in the area follow union issues and would be happy to start a partnership. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Consumer Reports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from employee of Consumer Reports

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
If you are partially blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
If the page is protected, use one of the following:
- {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
- {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
- {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
- {{FPER}} for fully protected pages
- {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

Pricegrabber

I would like to request that the following changes be enacted.

see proposed changes

In these proposed changes, I remove several statements backed to sources which are self-published by Consumer Reports and the sources themselves. The content is about a 2009 business relationship with PriceGrabber. I also modified text sourced to The New York Times to describe a similar relationship with BizRate.

The communications department here requests these changes because the content is inaccurate. From a Wikipedia perspective, I am proposing that this content be removed for being an original research interpretation of sources which do not meet reliable source standards. Thanks to anyone here who would comment on this proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor-in-chief change

The Wikipedia article lists "Ellen Kampinsky" as editor-in-chief of the magazine and cites 2014 source to confirm this. I would like to update the editor name to "Diane Salvatore" and to cite this 2015 press release to confirm the change in position.

Consumer Reports. "Release Date: 05/27/2015 Consumer Reports Announces New Senior Content Team". Retrieved 8 January 2016.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- This change has been completed. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless I'm mistaken, "this change has been completed". I'll close this. Reopen if there are issues. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Board Members / Vote

Article should be updated soon with the new board members, from https://survey.consumerreports.org/isa/HPLXDVABJBBPEYIHGRBTCRLOEAGYBXPH/2016/ballot_bio.html/ http://archive.is/hU7Cg (the vote result looks to be a foregone conclusion - only one slate - only a yea/nay vote.)--Elvey^(t•c) 21:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo update

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
If you are partially blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
If the page is protected, use one of the following:
- {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
- {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
- {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
- {{FPER}} for fully protected pages
- {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

I work for Consumer Reports.

The logo of the organization changed. Also, the issue of the magazine shown in the article is from 2005 and outdated. I exchanged these outdated images with new ones that are up to date.

I am noting this change as a "request edit", but actually, I am just requesting review of what I already did. I think these changes should not be controversial. Check this edit to see the change. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Assuming all the tags on the files are correct, this looks fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made more logo updates. The logo in front of the building changed, and I changed the image of the building to show the new logo. The logo which was at Commons had a minor problem too which I address by uploading a new version of it. I think these are small changes but I wanted to note them here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

The article goes to great lengths to declare that they are unbiased and free from influence because of their "non-profit" tax status but does not actually disclose who funds the organization. It would appear that they are funded by a political advocacy group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Research_Group— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B11E:9E5D:8D5C:EAD6:3B7D:A207 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Reports. 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/20061022103136/http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/january/nw0105-7.htm to http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/january/nw0105-7.htm

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) 14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Journalism Review article

Long article on Consumer Reports, their financial challenges, layoffs, and competition with Wirecutter.

https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/consumer-reports-wirecutter.php
Testing out a new future for Consumer Reports
By Karen K. Ho
CJR
June 18, 2018

--Nbauman (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Update--Timeliness and Accuracy

Hi. My name is Doug and I work for Consumer Reports. I plan to make a few edits to the page to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the content.

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 --[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 22:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
+== Page Update--Timeliness and Accuracy ==
+Hi. My name is Doug and I work for Consumer Reports. I plan to make a few edits to the page to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the content.