Talk:ProCon.org

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2006	Articles for deletion	Deleted

Discussion

So there was a third opinion opened for this article, but there isn't any discussion here. There is the stuff over at Ckatz's talk page, but that seems to be about another article.. So I'm going to suggest that discussion about this page be left here.

Now, onto the topic at hand. I agree with Ckatz's inclusion of the issues templates. At the very least, this article needs more sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

came here for the same reason, so I guess you could consider this a fourth opinion. the issue templates should stay per HelloAnnyong, however the information Ckatz removed, such as the issues they cover should be reinstated, although without the links per Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11 sources for one article is more than Wikipedia normally provides - especially for an article of this short length. Examples of debate-related terms in Wikipedia: Opposing Views had 3 sources. Junior Statesmen of America had 5. Even the word debate had only 1 source. CKatz removed over 100 references to ProCon.org throughout Wikipedia regardless of the relevance of those references. Does anyone else find that inappropriate? User:Redondomax 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The issues are partly with this article, but more about the spamming of links to the ProCon site. I've outlined the problem in greater detail at the initial post, where The Four Deuces has raised an interesting question about the site's POV. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, turns out ProCon sponsored a contest to have this article created, with a one hundred dollar cash prize. Editors who worked on the article in the contest period (July 2009) included Redondomax, the SPA ThomasMorton, and the contest winner, Cjsklions13. So, we've got a site that is being spammed by single-purpose editors, that paid for an article about itself to be created. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's well sourced and everything, but it's also pretty blatant advertising by editors with a very obvious bias (due to the contest). If you put it up for AFD, I'll add some discussion there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just because it was edited by interested editors, doesn't mean we should delete it, it should be edited to make it NPOV, perhaps introducing sourced criticisms of the organisation, please see wp:preserve--UltraMagnus (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several points to consider. 1. Over 140 media references to ProCon.org (including LA Times, Popular Science, Forbes, Guardian - and that's just in 2009): http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=001519. 2. California Supt. of Education tweets his positive views about ProCon.org: http://www.procon.org/education.asp. 676 schools use ProCon.org http://www.procon.org/how-schools-are-using-procon.asp. One person at one blog - Library Juice - publicly says ProCon.org has a conservative bias (although many of the blog readers said the author was totally wrong) and hundreds of educators and journalists (not to mention millions of visitors) think it is a valuable resource.

It has 11 sources for one article - much more than Wiki articles normally have - and there could easily be more. For third party proof of objectivity, how about the American Library Association's CHOICE magazine of resource reviews (Apr. 2009) where it stated: “Pros of this resource include its ease of use, content, and organization, which are quite good for a free resource. Sites are balanced and well documented, offering source documents, maps, and time lines.”

It is so easy to find fault with any page on Wikipedia. I become a user to make Wiki better because I got tired of complaining. Please consider making honest improvements to this page where you think it is necessary.User: Redondomax 7 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Someone tagged this article as having "peacock terms." Can someone help me understand which word or words specifically are considered "peacock"? Perhaps it was added in error. Any advice? User: Redondomax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, said ProCon.org was neutral (http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/15/is-proconorg-neutral/). He said: "The whole project looks wonderful, from the point of view both of a researcher and of someone who loves neutrality in educational resources. My compliments also to whoever designed the site and its software. It is remarkably well-laid-out." User: Redondomax 7 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting, but wikipedia is built on consensus and is not a dictatorship. I have removed the peacock tag along with the ref improve tag, as both seem rather irrelevant, I could not find a single peacock term in the article, if the editor that added the tag can point out some then it can be reworded. I held short on removing the entire criticism section, however the only source for its criticism seems to violate wp:SPS, if a better source cannot be found for it, it should be removed.--UltraMagnus (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, ProCon.org. You have new messages at Redondomax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The blog source remains on the page. I'm honestly afraid to do anything on the page since CKatz seems to have a personal bias against ProCon.org, and I am tired of arguing with him. If you still think the page needs updating would you mind doing it or somehow alerting others to what is needed? User: Redondomax

You are well aware of the problem with Procon, not the least of which has been the massive spamming of links to the site, the use of it for references when discussions indicated that it was not a reference source, and the fact that the site sponsored a contest with prize for the creation of a Wikipedia article about itself. That aside, the material - both positive and negative - was not sourced correctly and has been removed. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem ProCon has is the bias demonstrated against it from only one Wiki editor whose aggressive actions have been chided and undone by other editors. CKatz well knows that links to ProCon can be completely legitimate by Wiki rules even though he removes all (literally, all) such links regardless of their relevance or purpose. ProCon can be a reference source, may be considered reliable and verifiable in many contexts by Wiki standards , follows NPOV rules, and discussions have indicated so. His claims of massive spamming to ProCon reflect his view that any link to ProCon is spam when such claims are false. If not for CKatz hundreds of diverse user-added links to ProCon from 2005-2010 would have remained in Wikipedia. Instead he has single handedly deleted them all. This information about CKatz should be relevant to anyone editing this page or any page that may have a reference to ProCon.User: Redondomax 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, and I see that I will not have to warn you about WP:NPA because someone has already done that at User talk:Redondomax#January 2011. Every time this topic has been discussed, other editors have confirmed that the site does not meet the required standards, and that the site has been spammed into Wikipedia pages (now removed). We might have sat back and allowed one editor to do all the work, but there were many other editors who noticed what was going on and who agreed with the removals. Every editor should be here to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be particularly concerned whether one external site is promoted on these pages. You need to read some of the links you included in your message. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"every time" is inaccurate. Other editors have supported the inclusion of ProCon based on Wiki rules (including Wikipedia's co-founder, Larry Sanger, whose comments could not be used because they appeared on his blog and therefore do not quality as a reliable source) and disagreed with the aggressive deletions. I have carefully read all the links in my messages which is why I am a good editor. Please be respsectful in your communications with other editors. I, along with many Wiki editors, are here to make Wikipedia better, and we sometimes find that using ProCon fairly and best achieves that purpose. There is nothing wrong with healthy and civil disagreement for the great purpose of improving Wikipedia. Do you believe that there is no legitimate use for ProCon on Wikipedia pages? If you think are occassional times when ProCon can be used to improve Wikipedia, how would you advise editors to go about linking or sourcing the site to avoid the same negative repercussions I and others have experienced? I am asking honestly. User: Redondomax 10 January 2011

You claim that your are but one of "many" editors who support this - please provide links to support this claim. It appears to completely ignore the reality that many, many PC links appeared in conjunction with the site's contest asking its users to write a Wikipedia article (with a chance at winning a cash prize for doing so). Your first contributions to the PC article were during that same period, and there were several other single-purpose accounts that appeared at the same time to add links. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality check

I was checking the page for neutrality, and I got a bit carried away reading the procon website. Anyways, I ended up posting a pretty big expansion. Since this page obviously has a checkered history of COI editing, (User:Redondomax, you aren't as sneaky as you think), I wanted to give an overview of the updates so as not to rock the boat.

Most of the expansion was trying to give some context on how the ProCon interacts with the media/various institutions, and to make it clear what their main claim to fame is (which I gathered to be their info on medicinal marijuana, in which case they seem to be cited more often than NORML's material. NORML's scientific material doesn't seem to get as much attention by school's and government agencies as ProCon, I assume because their bias is rather obvious.) Unless I get distracted in the meantime, I think my next pet project will be reading ProCon's material more carefully and seeing if it has a place on the medicinal marijuana entries. If that interests you, you should help out! Or at least look over this expansion to see if you can help streamline or organize better.

Almost forgot, the neutrality check - I'm removing NPOV tag for now, though if Redondomax or the original poster make new additions, it may need another review. Except for the blog I couldn't find any negative online info about the site, and earlier consensus already determined the blog wasn't enough to warrant a criticism section. But if people can keep an eye out for more critical material, that would be good. Happy editing, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

If I had to guess, I would say it had a slightly conservative point of view. Some of it has to do with the star ratings, the selections of arguments for one side seem to be among weaker arguments even though the sources are of similar strength. The articles on homosexuality are much more right leaning although a lot of the other ones seem relatively neutral. It has a high number of articles on that from what I can tell.

75.94.89.240 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ProCon.org does not have a NPOV. The overarching issue with ProCon.org is that it promotes the logical fallacy of false equivalence, which pervades the entire website. Basically, they take factual information and put it on the same level as demonstrably false information, leaving it to the reader to "decide". A good example of this is their "Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?" section. You will see in there under the "Pro" category that they quote sources from NASA and National Academy of Sciences, while under the "Con" category they quote people who have shown to have heavy bias in their reasoning as well as factually inaccurate information. This makes it appear to the casual reader as if both sides have validity when it has been shown by expert opinion that they do not (see Climate Change Denial), which by definition is the essence of misinformation, quoted in WP as being "false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive." The very fact that they have to state that they are "nonpartisan" and "reliable" in their website banner should be red flags towards a lack of NPOV, which is very similar to the self-proclaimed "Fair and Balanced" slogan of Fox News, which is puffery: an exaggerated commendation for promotional purposes, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined.

--Doc cromwell (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]