This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Varnent (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here.)
I'm wondering if these sections should be re-ordered to match the order the foundation lists them in, rather than in alphabetical order. Seems like it might make more sense that way. Softlavender (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should not put them in the order the foundation prefers, we are not their agent. A more NPOV approach would likely be to source out each section, and then put them in order of relevance according to the weight reliable sources give them. The most discussed would likely be first, the most ignored likely would be last, etc. In that way we are likely serving the readers looking for the information. As well the order can change as coverage in reliable sources changes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question referred not so much to what the foundation prefers, but rather to their relative weights in the foundation's donations. In other words, what percent of the foundation's donations go to which category; the largest should go first and then in decreasing order. My cursory understanding of the organization leads me to believe that the largest donee groups are LGBT and Los Angeles, and that the smallest is probably animal research, which makes this article very misleading. And reliable-source mentions seem to tend to weight them like I have, as well. In fact I really never see animal research show up in RS media mentions of the foundation. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree. There's nothing POV about listing a foundation's primary activities, and there is an undue-weight issue in listing them out of order of actual weight or out of order to actual importance to the foundation and to what the foundation is known for. I haven't had time to fiddle with this, but in the future I may. Other than the personal opinion given above, is there any other reason you might object if I made it more accurate? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that each section outline some info on amount given if that is your goal. I do not think the order of them in the article necessarily implies importance the way you are hoping. Also, the amounts are misleading - the largest recipient fund is the LA Fund, but they have given more grants in the LGBT Fund, but they tend to give more priority to CyberCenter efforts - so amount given alone is not really an accurate indication IMHO. I think making that judgement call, rather than just presenting the numbers and letting the reader decide, is not for us as editors to decide. Alpha is the most NPOV way to present the sections. If you want to convey importance in size, I suggest adding that in the content and not use the formatting - which can be seen as making perhaps inaccurate decisions on things like importance. --Varnent (talk)(COI)16:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline or essay on this? I've never seen alphabetical headings as any sort of policy for article headings, particularly not headings of an entity's or person's activities. This isn't a List article. All reliable independent sources give the LGBT giving as the foundation's main activities, followed by the LA fund, followed by, in relative equality to each other, voter education, handgun control, and AIDS interests. Animal rights is rarely ever mentioned at all. Since Wikipedia is based on reliable-source citations (and common sense), it follows that we should follow that order, in my opinion. There is nothing in WP:NPOV about alphabetization of headings; in fact, it states that weight should be given to subjects in proportion to their relative prominence. There is nothing POV about prioritizing the importance or relative significance of subjects (as reflected in reliable sources as well as possibly primary sources) when placing headings in an article. In fact, that is what WP:Writing better articles, and WP:News style, and even WP:Summary style is all about. We don't want to confuse or baffle the reader; we want to inform them as best and as conscientiously as possible. Placing the least-mentioned and least-important (to the organization) heading first is both baffling and misleading. By the way, the lede should also reflect the relative importance of the various fields of donation. Relevance (and prominence) is always the key to Wikipedia inclusion, both in the fact of inclusion itself, and in the order of inclusion. Softlavender (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - so instead of getting into a silly policy debate (I too can find essays to support just about any editor viewpoint I want to convey), what do you suggest as a way of figuring out the order? So far I haven't seen any ideas beyond the amount funded and order on foundation's website - which as discussed seem flawed. You asked my input, and I've provided it. You haven't really countered with any ideas - just argued that you don't like mine. I am trying to find a compromise. As I've said, I think you are assigning more importance to the order of words and sections than seems reasonable to me. Again, I suggest putting the information you are trying to convey, which I assume is how they financially fund some areas much more than others, in the text - which would more clearly convey that information. I realize that the order of the sections may imply that to you - but it would never occur to me as a reader to see that order and go "well obviously that indicates the importance of the foundation's investments as well" instead of just "oh - this is the random order the editors put it in." The information on how much is invested in each fund is on the Foundation's website, I suggest that be added to the text. Honestly, I think the argument over the order of the sections is not worth the debate - my main point is I do not think it will do what you seem to be trying to accomplish. If the order makes it easier for you as a reader - okay - but I don't think that will do what you're attempting with all readers. I also agree with the note that Sportfan5000 left that the foundation's preferences should not necessarily be the concern - which then does lead me to wonder how to pick the order in a balanced way. Alphabetical may not be "policy" per se - but when listing things like programs - it can help with neutrality. Ultimately my conclusion was that it wouldn't be worth the effort - hence my suggestion of putting in the content what you are trying to convey instead of focusing on using the layout to do it. If you feel it is worth the effort - okay - but what is your plan? --Varnent (talk)(COI)05:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
