Talk:CreativeFuture

Ensuring this article remains balanced and non-biased In the coming weeks with all the debate about SOPA, etc, I think this page will need a lot of work so that the public can have a balanced and clear overview of what Creative America is. The article only gave a very brief overview, without talking about the group in the context of recent news events. I think it is important to discuss Creative America's background, objectives and reasons for these objectives on this page, while also discussing backlash associated with the group - biases, misinformation and the financial incentives. As I said, I think this article will have increasing prominence over the next few weeks and it is important to give people the information they need to come to their own conclusions, or risk them becoming victims of propaganda tactics and lack of knowledge. — Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 25 January 2012‎

Creative America is, by definition, an astroturfing group, because it pretends to be a "grassroots" operation, but is funded by the major Hollywood studios and is run by a former studio/MPAA exec. That said, I think that the article is not encyclopaedic at the moment (Jan 2012); it should just present facts and not editorialize. --JBlesder (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the characterization of SOPA as "notorious." Your definition of astroturfing is good, but the source for our statement that Creative America is astroturf is a very POV blog, so I think the article still has a neutrality problem. Peter Chastain (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A series of pro-SOPA/PIPA emails sent by Creative America shared close similarities with anti-SOPA/PIPA emails sent by Public Knowledge, leading some to conclude that Creative America had plagiarized their opponent's emails with only superficial changes.[8][9]"

I believe that this segment should be edited or deleted out of the post for several reasons.

1. Referenced source 8 article by Timothy B. Lee does not use any assertive language in his article that concludes that Creative America has plagiarized, stole, copy pasted or anything of the sort. The article does seem to raise the question if this was a possibility but it is written with deliberation, carefully to avoid such language. Following the rules of accurate citation, it would be wrong to say "Creative America had plagiarized their opponent's emails", based upon this article.
2. Referenced source 9 article by Mike Masnick is no longer credible. Mike Masnick, due to writing articles of such nature is currently under a $15million defamation lawsuit that doesn't seem to be resolving in his favor. Works of journalists who are under investigation and facing legal consequences due to the articles they write I believe, should not be deemed credible. Using aggravating language and stating flashy, unproven conclusions for the sake of getting views is literally nothing more than clickbait, and the exact charges he is facing in court right now. I am not saying that Mike Masnick automatically lost his credibility because he is on trial. But the charges brought against him does directly challenge his credibility as an journalist which is relevant when discussing his works.
2a. Even if Mike Masnick's articles were still treated with some sort of credibility, regardless, wikipedia's rule for content removal should be followed. Under the section "Inaccurate Information" it is stated that if an information is "inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt" then it should be removed. And in this case, I believe at the least, reasonable doubt has been established.
2b. From the very same articles by Timothy B. Lee and Mike Masnick, you could see that there are similarities between the e-mails but there is nothing you can take to state that an act of plagiarism has occurred as an fact. (On Wikipedia opinions aren't allowed and shouldn't be posted, only facts; Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines). This didn't occur within a school where a dean or a staff could officially label it as an act of plagiarism. No institution, government or otherwise have called it such, gave out an warning, fine, charge of any kind describing Creative America's action as an act of plagiarism. At most you could argue it as a case of intellectual property theft, which once again, no charges or mention has been brought up by any institution that could make these claims an official fact. Yes, this segment is from a online published piece of writing, but it was from one that was stating an opinion, nothing more. Therefore, it is inappropriate content to be on a wikipedia article, especially with how it is worded at the current state.
2c. Citing evidence from above, the citation of this article and the diction of the segment under review violates another Wikipedia rule under "Inappropriate content for Wikipedia" sub-section "Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject." Like said before, the sentence "Creative America had plagiarized their opponent's emails with only superficial changes." is nothing but unproven opinion of an individual and its language bears characteristics of defamation and slander. Wikipedia guidelines state that articles need to be of a neutral stance and this is not. It is one thing to post a proven charge as a fact on a wikipedia page, but to post unproven opinions with strong feelings is disparaging the subject. This is the same reason why even though plenty of major news outlets have called Donald Trump racist, misogynistic, etc... it isn't on his wikipedia page because these are not proven charges and violates the neutrality of the article.

3. My aim in writing this isn't necessarily to have the entire segment under review removed. If it was written using neutral language and citing credible sources then I wouldn't have a issue with it. But at it's current state it violates multiple guidelines/policies set by Wikipedia and therefore I believe it should be effectively removed from this article.

Remove POV tag?

Is this article (or stub, as I would call it) now sufficiently NPOV that we can remove the POV tag? Peter Chastain (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]