Talk:Information for Social Change

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

This article is lacking/in need of proper references from reliable sources (other than the organization itself). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article makes no claims about the organization's importance, why isn't the organization itself a sufficient source of information about it? Rlitwin 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines states:

“

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

”

While the organization's own website can be used for some basic verification, sources other than its own website ought to be utilized. If such sources aren't available, then the article would also fail notability guidelines. If the article makes no claim about the organization's importance, that's a problem not an answer. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has turned into quite a rambling mess since I've last looked at it. There is WAY too much detail here and far too little references. I liked it better when it was closer to a stub, it was at least more concise then. Do we really need whole sections on each member of the board, and a listing of all their newsletters? Sheesh --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]