Jump to content

Talk:Kids Wish Network

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

Off-wiki stalking

[edit]

Employees of this company and their "crisis-management consultant" have been snooping around for me (and presumably other editors, as well) on social networks. I assume they're also responsible for this morning's whitewash. Just a heads-up for other editors to be aware of. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit clearly contains content self-identified as Original Research, because it says within the content itself that a newspaper "declined to publish" information they wanted to include. However, I don't think it would be accurate to call it a whitewash, rather than an attempt to inject the company's point-of-view and response with every little understanding of our rules. However, that is not entirely astray from something the article genuinely needs - I found that the source material covered the organization's defense to the allegations quite thoroughly, while we did not. Some of their statements in their defense are less valid than others, just as some of the criticisms are, but we have to let readers decide for themselves. Some of the press articles are wildly sensational about common things, like the founder being paid $80k a year (or something). I've made that much as an office worker-bee. Are they criticizing them for paying him too little? When we use sensational press articles, we have to exercise some degree of good judgement.
Anyways, I gave it a once-over. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think the once-over leaves the article in poorer shape, well-intentioned as it was.
If the organization were most notable for its work, it would make sense to lead with discussion of it as a normal organization. But in this case, the article's subject is most notable for being a really sketchy "charity." It has been the subject of lots of national coverage for that reason, and the coverage of its charity work is typically limited to one-off pieces in the local or specialty press, which even then are writing not about the organization itself but about the beneficiary or the celebrity.
Because Kids Wish Network is notable for its questionable business practices, I think it presents a rare case in which we have WP:UNDUE problems by focusing on the organization's history, mission and structure before addressing the cloud of controversy that it seems unable to dispel.
I think that it would be appropriate to do a wholesale revert of these changes and start over, but I'd like to hear what CorporateM (and anyone else) thinks before starting any kind of pissing match.
Thoughts? — Bdb484 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Having just noticed that you self-disclosed your occasional contributions in a PR capacity, I hope you won't mind if I just ask to verify that your edits here aren't linked to any connections you may have to Kids Wish Network, its employees, contractors, etc., etc., etc. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in chronological order, but any sequence would be fine. No, Kids is not a client of mine. The list of celebrities looks undue and the sources are junk, but I didn't delete it in my once-over. CorporateM (Talk) 07:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm going to put a line about fundraising back up top, and the rest can stay down under the subhed.
I think the removal of some of the celebrities may have been heavy-handed. Bleacher Report and Athens Online, for instance, seem reliable enough to me, though I don't care enough to put them back in. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The article is an awkward size. It's too long for the stub format I originally had in mind with no sub-sections, but too short to make decent-sized sub-sections and so on. Not sure what to do about it, but the article's "good enough". I'm gonna take it off my watchlist but if something comes up feel free to ping me. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're talking past each other, but I'm confused about why you struck the parts that I added to the first paragraph. It sounded like we were in agreement about that approach. I'm assuming it was an oversight, so I'll stick it back in. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like I was just looking at the wrong version. Nevermind. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having sorted out the version history, I do still think the first paragraph goes overboard. I don't think it requires a detailed accounting of every controversy, especially when they're all spelled out in further detail elsewhere in the page. Since you're not watching the page anymore, I don't know that it's going to be useful to wait for a reply, so I'll switch it back and wait to hear from anyone who thinks it's a bad idea. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned my username, it pings me. Editors often add this bit about "bad publicity". Unless the source specifically says "bad publicity" this is original research / original synthesis. WP:LEAD says the lead should include 1-2 sentences from each section, so it does need something from History in the lead. I am partial to always explaining who it is making the criticisms, as Wikipedia itself does not criticize anyone - we only repeat that criticisms have been made. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, the "negative publicity" sentence does seem inartful, but I'm not sure how to handle it. Do you think it would be fair to say something along the lines of "it is most notable for" questions about trademark infringement, fundraising, etc.? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 14 August 2013

[edit]

Hello, can you please add this photo of John Cena and Savannah to the page? It shows Cena granting a wish to one of our wish kids. Thank you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Cena_with_wish_kid_fan_Savannah.JPG

Kidswishnetwork (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the John Cena Image removed after it was approved and followed the guidelines? This is directed at Bdb484. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.200.70 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. You'd probably be better off asking the editor who removed it. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 23 August 2013

[edit]

Thank you! This is also a wish that was granted with our wish child and President Obama. Is there anyway we can have this added to the wishes granted, being that it is a significant one? Source: http://www.doverpost.com/article/20090721/NEWS/307219978 Kidswishnetwork (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not in the Commons, so it can't be added. Even if it were, it could be subject to deletion because of copyright protections. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the John Cena Image removed after it was approved and followed the guidelines? This is directed at Bdb484.

Request edit on 9 September 2013

[edit]

Fox News 9 recently aired a report on a wish that Taylor Swift granted for one of our wish kids, source: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/23385521/mankato-girl-with-spinal-condition-meets-taylor-swift

Here is a CBS affiliate piece about a Green Bay Packers wish for one of our wish kids, source: http://www.kmtv.com/news/local/167247635.html

Are these external sources, something that can be added to the page?

70.46.200.70 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added both to the page. I can't speak for other editors, but that's probably the last of the additions I'll be making, as the idea here is not to compile an exhaustive list, but rather to assemble a representative sample. I'd imagine that any additions I make beyond this would be accompanied by a 1:1 removal of already-added names. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kids Wish Network. 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) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want 1082921883 rubox 2603:8000:193F:6BEE:5D82:3987:25BB:7BB6 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kids_Wish_Network&oldid=1253544462"