Talk:OUTeverywhere

Membership

The page is claiming a membership of 200,000 citing a Guardian article. This figure may well be incorrect, and the article itself does not indicate where this figure has come from, or whether it means current membership or total registrations since the website was created. Also, even if this figure were accepted I would argue that placing a figure of 200,000 under membership which relates to five years ago is using vastly out of date information in a way that may act as promotion. Teppic74 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If the company folds, then the figure would be zero, this would not be a reason to remove all the facts. Wikipedia articles are about the long term view, not the most recent events. If 200,000 were a maximum membership (I have no idea, it might be) then this would be useful encyclopaedic fact to include in the article along with the date that qualifies it. If you can source a better figure for the infobox then by all means replace it, but blanking sourced information in an article that desperately needs more sourced information seems an odd thing to do and not in the best interests of improvement.

You may wish to reconsider other sourced information you have chosen to blank from this article on similar doubful grounds, such as the past intiatives with other organizations which you appear to have deleted on the basis that this is old information even though this clarified the ongoing nature of partnership that is part of this organization's declared strategy (diff).

As for your point that you doubt the Guardian, it's a well known quality reliable source and Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to verify the figure because, as has been stated in previous discussions, the figures have never been published, so we're unlikely ever to see an article that disputes this. However, if that is seen as irrelevant, I still believe using five year old information prominently for an active existing website is misleading. Teppic74 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer to introduce a section in the body explaining about membership growth (or decline if this can be verified) then I would not be against it coming out of the infobox on that basis. In my opinion infoboxes are handy but not a requirement or a replacement for getting information correct and explained in the article body. Fæ (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot source anything, because no figures are released. Anything else would be original research or presumptions based on traffic (it is clear that the site does not have 200,000 active members now, it would most certainly get better rankings). I think that if the 200,000 figure is used, it must be done in a way that does not promote the site or imply anything other than what the source said. This is my main concern, that a site that I do not believe meets notability requirements (and I stress that this is in good faith) has an article that really only serves to advertise it. (Off topic somewhat) Teppic74 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

This article needs a huge clean up. Many of the claims are not sourced, and never have been, and should be removed if they cannot be verified. The article currently relies on too many references to the website itself, which is obviously not an independent reliable source. Teppic74 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a BLP. Articles about companies often reference the company website or annual reports and so long as the information is not unduly self serving or non-neutral this is not a problem against policy. Further not every sentence in an article requires a footnoted citation if the facts are obvious or easy to check using a primary referenced source (in this case the organization's website which includes simple facts on date of foundation, staff and strategy). In practice there are articles with no footnotes but with an identified source and this type of format also fulfils the verification policy. Fæ (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And in the case when the only real source is the company's own website? That's the issue that needs fixing (aside from the multiple claims about its history, which have no source at all). Teppic74 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, within the criteria I already mentioned. If you do not wish to trust to my experience you can always ask for another opinion on WP:3O, at the moment I feel like our discussion is going in circles, so having someone else explain You don't need to cite that the sky is blue might be more useful for you. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the obvious information, but the descriptions of history and growth, company affiliations, etc. which are not obvious and need sources. Teppic74 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)