Talk:Sharecare: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:38, 24 November 2020

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 15 April 2011 by reviewer Wikipedian2 (talk · contribs).

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

SCbhaynes (talk · contribs) has been paid by Sharecare. User page disclosure

Remove Banner?

I read through the content here on Sharecare, and I am not seeing anything that appears to contradict the neutrality standards of Wiki. I recognize that someone close to the page made edits, but there have been many edits since that time (2019). I've never removed a banner. Does anyone else feel that the removal is prudent? Thank you!

Juliecmi (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Employees

Hi editors!

Could someone please update the number of employees to the most up-to-date count of 2,400? The citation used here was updated not to reflect the current number of employees "as of September 2020," although the page's infobox still shows a count of "3,249 (2019)."

I work for Sharecare and have a "paid conflict of interest" as defined by the site's guidelines. And of course, out of respect for the Wikipedia Terms of Use & conflict of interest rules, I'm requesting this change instead of editing directly. SCbhaynes (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors, SCbhaynes here again. I noticed the Subsidiaries list in the infobox seems long considering its lack of sourcing and that the details are not fleshed out more within the article content. What do reviewing editors suggest as the best approach for improving the list? I've included some thoughts below in hopes that editors will provide guidance and apply appropriate changes. Again, I'll continue to avoid editing the article directly due to my conflict of interest. Some thoughts I had that might make sense here:

a) remove subsidiaries that do not have their own Wikipedia article entries and therefore might not be considered notable enough for mention
b) As sourcing allows, remove any brands operating under Sharecare's control that are not true "subsidiaries" by its definition.
- NOTE: I understand appropriate sourcing should be provided to verify changes like this. However, journalistic coverage of such details may be limited, given such changes are not always announced or put on record. For what it's worth, none of these entities are "subsidiaries" of our company; they’ve been fully absorbed into the Sharecare brand and do not exist today as unique entities, subsidiaries, or divisions. Can editors advise what sort of sources are appropriate for verifying changes like this to infobox details, if not journalistic ones?

I welcome guidance and feedback from reviewing editors and will defer to the consensus of the community. Thanks in advance for any assistance. SCbhaynes (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :{{done}} ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 13:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
+Hi editors, [[User:SCbhaynes|SCbhaynes]] here again. I noticed the '''Subsidiaries''' list in the infobox seems long considering its lack of sourcing and that the details are not fleshed out more within the article content. What do reviewing editors suggest as the best approach for improving the list? I've included some thoughts below in hopes that editors will provide guidance and apply appropriate changes. Again, I'll continue to avoid editing the article directly due to my conflict of interest. Some thoughts I had that might make sense here:
+*a) remove subsidiaries that do not have their own Wikipedia article entries and therefore might not be considered notable enough for mention
+*b) As sourcing allows, remove any brands operating under Sharecare's control that are not true "subsidiaries" by its definition.
+**NOTE: I understand appropriate sourcing should be provided to verify changes like this. However, journalistic coverage of such details may be limited, given such changes are not always announced or put on record. For what it's worth, none of these entities are "subsidiaries" of our company; they’ve been fully absorbed into the Sharecare brand and do not exist today as unique entities, subsidiaries, or divisions. Can editors advise what sort of sources are appropriate for verifying changes like this to infobox details, if not journalistic ones?
+I welcome guidance and feedback from reviewing editors and will defer to the consensus of the community. Thanks in advance for any assistance. [[User:SCbhaynes|SCbhaynes]] ([[User talk:SCbhaynes|talk]]) 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)