Talk:World News Media

PROD

Scottrouse I invite you to explain your concerns in more detail here, and would ask you if you represent or work for this business. Please note that information that may be negative(which I'm not sure how it even is in this case) isn't grounds to delete an article. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Have removed the PROD, as the editor has a highly probable COI, which I have raised on their talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern is that the article in question does not lend anything particularly useful as an encyclopedia entry. Edwardx appears only to have attempted to discredit World News Media and its associated awards by including it in a Vanity awards category and linking to a negative opinion piece in which the one example given is World News Media. Perhaps if we are going to have a discussion, Edwardx would like to disclose what his COI is? If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship as per the wikipedia conflict of interest page. While I would like to assume good faith, I don't think the article in question maintains a neutral tone and remain suspicious of the editor's motives. Scottrouse (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Scottrouse Someone posting information critical of this company doesn't mean they have a COI against the company or that they are being paid to edit negatively about this company. However, someone claiming that content is "defamatory" (beware of using legal jargon, see WP:LIBEL) likely has some sort of connection to the company, as people typically don't use that term for things they are not associated with. As stated on your user talk page, you also need to state any COI or paid editing relationship that you have. Regarding the tone of this article, if you have reliable sources that have information that might improve the tone, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest, and have never been paid to edit Wikipedia (as has been stated on my userpage for quite some time). I have started articles on other "vanity award" companies, and have no particular view on WN Media. Amusing that Scottrouse is suddenly such an authority on conflict of interest, when they are yet to make a COI declaration. Edwardx (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I merely suggested that Edwardx might have a COI given the tone of the entry and invited them to disclose what relationship, if any, they have with World News Media or its past employees. I do not claim to be an authority on COI and confess that I am a current employee at World News Media. I am not a regular wikipedia user - we do not maintain any wikipedia pages so you can attribute any missteps in the process to this (and I do apologise for this). I am concerned that the article in question does not preserve a neutral point of view and contains statements from sources that are false. 331dot, you request reliable sources which wikipedia defines as: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - those are in short supply these days, you need only look as far as this wikipedia entry for proof. The company would prefer not to have a wikipedia entry, I'm not allowed to remove it, and by virtue of the fact that I am an employee, I'm not allowed to directly edit the page. So what would you have me do? Scottrouse (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your relationship. You may also wish to post such a statement on your user page per WP:PAID(if you are using a computer to edit, click your username at the top of the screen, or in your signature above, to access it). In terms of what you can do with this page, I can't think of too much that you can do. You bringing a formal and full Articles for Deletion discussion would probably be difficult given your COI, but I don't think someone could actually stop you from doing it. If you make your COI clear in the page, and base your arguments on Wikipedia guidelines and not what the company or you might want the page to say, you would have a chance at least. If you wish to question the reliability of the sources in the article, you might be able to get others independent of your company to agree with you at the Reliable Sources discussion board(click WP:RSN to access) and then you could start a deletion discussion. If I were you, that's what I would do. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

331dot, Thank you for this. While I respect Edwardx's considerable contribution to this site, I despair at his dressing up the passing of judgement in this way. Edwardx, the very fact that you have started articles on what you call "vanity award" companies suggests that you do have a particular view - one which has no place here. If you are not amenable to taking down the page and I hear nothing more from you, I will move things forward as 331dot has suggested. Scottrouse (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)