Talk:Association for Progressive Communications/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scope for a lot more links here

Scope for a lot more links here. --fredericknoronha 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

APC Milestones

Should we be more distinct between the "APC Milestones" and events which actually occured at the Institute for Global Communications? IGC (USA), PeaceNet (USA), and GreenNet (UK) all existed before the APC. Should the events listed under "APC Milestones" actually be moved to the the IGC and GreenNet pages?

I guess this depends a bit on your perspective and goals.

(I worked for IGC between 1997-2000. Truth be told, I could never keep the history straight)

Gigglesworth 02:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

APC is an important global organization. I would like to help make this article better. These are the things I noticed

• Lots of information (good) but not many inline citations (not good). This is a priority to fix, otherwise the whole section APC milestones can be deleted. The information provided needs to be connected with references.
• Some content is a bit biased. For example:"This is a challenge and a strength" is stating somebody's opinion and it is not necessary. It could be mentioned somewhere else in the article.

Gpeja (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Step 1

Sections are organized using United Nations article as a reference. Whomever continues to work on this article please review the organization of United Nations article first. Some references are fixed using templates described in Wikipedia:Citation templates. There are still many to be done (all references from Notes sections to be updated and moved to References section) Most of the information without references is deleted.

• Rewriting bulletin points into prose
• Fixing references

 Done Gpeja (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Step 2

To be done:

• Do something about Members section. Use Member states of the United Nations framework
• Search for any illustrations on Wikipedia commons. The current image of one of the board members is not enough.

Please help...Gpeja (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Does updated History section have enough references?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that the section needs more secondary sources. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Does updated History section (used to be called AMS Milestones) have enough references? Please answer with yes/no and the detailed why. I am looking for both opinion about quality (article content) and the number of references. The completed changes are described in the section above.Gpeja (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Looking at the series of citations and references, it does look fine to me. Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment : if sheer number were any indication, yes. But the sources are severely lacking in the sense that most of them are primary. Even though some of them substantiate uncontroversial statements and information, as a whole the history section is about 65-80% referenced by primary sources. I recommend either trimming the section appropriately or finding better sources, which are available under a simple search online or in scholarly literature and print media. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FoCuS I agree with you that is why I started editing this article. My request for the comment is to get the other editors' opinion before I continue with my edits. Gpeja (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with user FoCuSandLeArN - there should be used much more references to scholarly literature --Fox1942 (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. More but better references are needed, per FoCuS' observations. -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Summoned by bot. I won't vote based on quantity, as number of references means very little. A solid secondary source is "worth" a dozen primary sources, especially on potentially controversial statements. In this case, as others have pointed out, the quantity isn't an issue but the quality is. Where possible, primary sources should be replaced with secondary sources. This doesn't really need an RfC, as it's already policy as per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. A more specific RfC or request for outside opinion would be far more useful after editors attempt to replace primary sources with secondary sources if there remains a large percentage of primary sources and the editors need assistance in determining how to best proceed. ~ Rob^Talk 00:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.