User talk:Sheif.Gumpta
Dear Sheif.Gumpta, Many thanks for your help with this article. I believe there is a bit of edit warring going on about this article. I have reverted it to the last clean version, which I believe is the one of Calk19. There have been a number of conversations within the Wikipedia community about the article. This is a very fine line to strike in terms of balance. It is a fact that she has come under scrutiny (Wikipedia is neutral to the reasons for the scrutiny). Given that this scrutiny has received wide media coverage, it is worth including. In fact, it is just that scrutiny that is the only secondary coverage about the person. As most other sources are primary, they would not normally be sufficient to establish notability. Please also take care when making statements such as accusing writers of news articles of being "poltically motivated". Unless this has been covered elsewhere in the media, this itself is a problem with WP:NPOV. Thanks. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Jake Jake Brockman @Jake Brockman:So much of this text is misinformation in this page, her education is purposefully incomplete, her work experience, her awards..everything apart from accusations originating from attackers. They are claiming she didn't work for nasa as she is not in the employee database when ONLY civil servants with american citizenship are "employees", all the thousands of foreign nationals working on nasa projects are contractors and it makes no difference. The first-liner description is vandalism, only written for defamation purposes to perpetuate the harassment she is receiving. NO ONE on wiki is described like this, I don't see Donald Trump being described as the President "whose credentials have come under scrutiny after allegations of misrepresentation". There are so many sources about her from credible institutions that do due diligence on their members such as the World Economic Forum (https://www.weforum.org/people/eleni-antoniadou), Tallberg Foundation, Forbes and so many others. But no, wiki choses to allow this harassment although these same people fed the greek media with WIKI as source to even start the harassment and justify their arguments, because most Greeks don't understand that wikipedia can be edited by any given person even with malicious intent. The level to which this harassment was orchestrated is unprecedented and it's no surprise that the BBC source replicating the "accusations" is written by a Greek freelancer (not a proper BBC staff contributor) who is well known to be a leftist journalist based in Greece collaborating with specific opposition sources. As for the "politically motivated" comment you left me, if you check the "academic" that first accused her on facebook his feed is 90% politics cheering for the opposition in Greece, he is pathetic chap that is only known for instigating this attack and is happy to gain publicity through it because otherwise no one cares about his existence. pseudonym Sheif.Gumpta (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sheif.Gumpta, I am happy to work with you to improve the article, however we need to be cautious that whatever material is used to update the article is from reliable, independent sources and balances the coverage that is publicly available. It is not Wikipedia's mission to right wrongs, to find the ultimate truth or to produce original research by coming to conclusions that have not been previously published. Unless it has been published in reputable sources that the allegations are wrong or that they are politically motivated, we have to go by what we have. The BBC - in general - is regarded a reliable source and is considered secondary reporting. So is the Telegraph that also reported about this. WEF profiles or Forbes articles on the other hand, are not normally considered this was as they are primary (those profiles are often written by the subject themselves or their publicist). We would generally speaking discount those primary sources. In my opinions, this is the main issue with the article - the fact that most secondary, independent resourcing is about the allegations. You may want to raise the article to the NPOV noticeboard for wider community input. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jake, @Jake Brockman:, I would argue that media sources often do not even ask the subject of scrutiny of their opinion and don't provide balanced reporting, this was the case here as well. For example the claim on BBC that the company doesn't exist is a joke, it takes 1 minutes of googling to find it on the US registry as an LLC. On the other hand to be elected in the WEF all members go through extensive due diligence about their jobs, academic and professional background and even financial status. I don't feel ok with being harassed as well by the trolls here or in other social media, I just feel sorry for Eleni. And I wanted to explain to you why I edited the one-liner of the page's description about the "allegations of misrepresentation" because no one on wiki is described that way. It's ridiculous all together to describe one's life by one attack, more to that it's actually harassment in it's own right because you bias the reader to think negatively of her from the first line. I understand that you might be working towards the betterment of wikipedia, but I personally believe that there are unfortunately a lot of people using this medium with malicious intent, they take advantage of the free editing rights only to attack living people for whatever benefit. Sheif.Gumpta (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Eleni Antoniadou—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)