Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth Fund

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

In the interest of full disclosure, I simply wanted to note that I work for the Commonwealth Fund and we are interested in having a more developed entry here on Wikipedia. I welcome help in remaining objective and free from bias as I add content about both our history and current activities. Thanks a lot! Ajgajg 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in more information describing the funds current activities, and since the article mentions shifts in emphasis of its fellows programs perhaps say what the new focus is? Fuzbaby (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias May Be Unintended But Is Inherent

[edit]

The author admits to being a Commonwealth Fund employee and asks for help in keeping this piece objective. That's admirable, and it distinguishes this article from many in Wikipedia that cover policy and politics, but the result is inherently biased and reads like the "About Us" section of the organization's Web site. When researching an organization like the Commonwealth Fund, people come to Wikipedia to learn not only what an organization is (which they presumably could learn from the group's Web site) but why it is significant and -- because the modern think tank or "public policy" organization nearly always engages in explicit or implicit advocacy -- where its policies place it in the political spectrum.

With the debate about U.S. healthcare policy heating up, the Commonwealth Fund's findings are appearing in a growing number of news reports and editorials. I'm not prepared at this moment to assess Commonwealth's self-professed neutrality on the issue, but we should watch how it plays out over the coming weeks and months and update the article to make clear any bias. Unfortunately, we need to assume a slant exists, because few of the wealthy individuals or hidden organizations behind today's think tanks are disinterested in the issues for which they fund research. Simplemeasures (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article calls the current president a "progressive" economist is an indication of bias in itself. A better objective position would be to either not state the president's political leanings, or use a lease loaded term such as "left of center" or "left leaning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.121.167 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... the original version didn't describe the economist in question's political leanings, which I found biased (it makes one assume that the fund is neutral). I put in "progressive" (and will put it back in) because that's used on the fund's own site, so it's pretty impossible to dispute. If desired, then "left-wing (progressive)" might be a substitute. Allens (talk | contribs) 19:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Page

[edit]

The Commonwealth Fund is a nearly century-old U.S. foundation, with a longstanding role in philanthropy and improvement of the American health care system. Given this history, we at the organization would like to provide content for a more complete entry, to better reflect the scope of past and current activities. We plan to publish this new entry, with detailed citations, in the next few days and welcome your feedback. Christinefh (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It badly needs information not from the Commonwealth Fund, as in outside commentators, including critics. Such information is, on Wikipedia, given priority over information from an organization itself. Please don't attempt to delete such information, when properly-cited; such deletion is considered a conflict of interest (indeed, your editing the article in the first place may be considered such). Allens (talk | contribs) 20:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome outside information. I would just like to make clear the issue in question is the definition of the term "think tank." Christinefh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the definition of a "think tank" in the article on the subject (unless you'd like to propose a more authoritative source - feel free!) is an organization, typically non-profit, engaging in research and usually advocacy. That appears to fit. What's the alternative definition you're worried about? Allens (talk | contribs) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. BTW, I put up the "connected contributor" banner mostly as a formality, since you've made the situation clear. The same banner is in place regarding me at Talk:Gloucester County College - indeed, I placed it there - so it's not meant as anything negative - just a reminder of Wikipedia policies. Allens (talk | contribs) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Smith, I work with Christine at The Commonwealth Fund. We won't remove the term any longer, if you're adamant, but our objection is based on the fact that the Fund is, in fact, not a think-tank, but a private foundation (a term which has its own detailed article on wikipedia. In fact, though we do conduct some research in house, the vast majority of our funds are allocated as grants to external organizations. And as a 501c3 private foundation, we are expressly prohibited from engaging in political advocacy. We'll drop it from this point on, but the removal was, truly, in our eyes an effort to attain greater accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryscholl (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I'm OK with removing it, then. I'll put in a link to the Private foundation (United States) article. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your reconsidering. Barryscholl (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commonwealth Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commonwealth Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

The table "Notable early grantees and years funded" was just deleted by User:Torchiest. I found it quite interesting to see the wide variety of organizations funded and I think it gives a picture of what the fund was trying to achieve. In a way what they actually did seems more important than what they say they did. What do others think? Billlion (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the deletion and also questioned the reason for it. We have lists of Rhodes Scholars and MacArthur Fellows. This isn't exactly the same—they aren't prizes, they're just grants—but, still, it seemed to provide reasonable flavor, showing that they give grants to notable institutions. On the other hand, a great deal of the rest of the article needs editing to remove the tone of "this is their mission, isn't it exciting, and aren't they and their intentions wonderful?" I just cut out some of that, along with unnecessary organizational details, from the leadership section. Largoplazo (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, it felt promotional, but that could be because the entire article reads like a press release. I removed the activities section, which was really the worst offender, before noticing this talk page discussion. Since there's some dispute over it, I restored the table. It looks like there is consensus that the article overall is too promotional though. —Torchiest talkedits 14:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind to edit it heavily rather than remove it, but I don't really object to your removal. The substance of the entire section was the organization's motivations and goals behind their activities and a list of what we should consider the beneficial effects of the outcomes of those activities. The ratio of coverage of objectively stated deeds and outcomes to subjective exposition around those was low. Some of the material could be reinstated, but it needs to be more soberly written. Largoplazo (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_Fund&oldid=1198317114"