Talk:Netmums

Untitled

I am currently adding encyclopedic content and information to this page, as well as citing all my sources for this information. Auroraemma (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the speedy deletion notice for now, but in additional to adding content and sources, you'll also need to consider writing in a tone that doesn't sound quite as much like you're trying to advertise the website. Feel free to drop me a note if I can be of any further assistance. Shell ^babelfish 09:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am working through this page adding citations where possible.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Obes for netmums.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit of Netmums page by Editorial Director of Netmums website

Hello fellow Wikipedians

I can see that the last updates to the Netmums page were made over 2 years ago and contain lots of out of date/inaccurate information.

I would like to update the page so it provides most value to today's wikipedia users looking for information on Netmums.

My suggested edit, including citations is here:

Proposed edits by AnnieOleary

Netmums Type of site Parenting Available in English Owner aufeminin URL www.netmums.com Registration Optional Launched Early 2000 Netmums is the UK’s most diverse, supportive and inclusive parenting website in the UK, established in 2000. It produces daily editorial content on all parenting topics from activities to do with kids to recipes, health info and celebrity news. It also has a popular web forum, more family-related local listings than an other in the UK and the largest social media audience of any UK online parenting community with over 1.5m followers on Facebook. ==History== Netmums was founded by Siobhan Freegard, Cathy Court and Sally Russell who met at a playgroup in Harrow, London in 2000. Netmums began as a single local site, then gradually grew to cover the entire United Kingdom. In 2009 the website was included in The Independent newspaper's ‘Top 50 Websites and Blogs for Parents’, and the business was estimated to be worth £50 million. By 2011, the number of registered members of the website reached 1 million. Shortly after this, the three co-founders sold their company to European group aufeminin, originally retaining control over the Netmums brand, but later leaving the site to pursue other work. In the 2014 New Year Honours Netmums founders Freegard, Court and Russell received OBEs from the Queen for Services to Families. In September 2014, Rimi Atwal, formerly of Bauer Media Group, was appointed Managing Director. Anne-Marie (Annie) O'Leary replaced Cathy Ranson as editor in March 2015. In May 2020, O’Leary was promoted to Editorial Director. ==Content== The Netmums website is split into five key content areas: 1. Chat - the Netmums forum 2. Local - family-related local listings across the entire UK, searchable via topic, postcode or nearest town/city 3. Reviews - parenting, beauty and household product reviews and shopping guides 4. Parenting - the site’s editorial content, covering every step of the parenting journey: • Pregnancy • Baby • Child • Activities • Recipes • Life • Support • Influencers 5. Seasonal - Netmums creates content for each key calendar event in a family’s year, from Valentine’s Day through to Christmas. ==Netmums Support== In 2008, Netmums launched it’s unique Parent Supporters Service in its forum. This service, headed by NHS Project Manager Julia McGinley, trains and manages a team which identifies those parents in greatest need of mental health or practical support in the Netmums forum, and direct them to relevant support services. The site also launched a daily weeknight virtual Drop In Clinic in its forum where a rota of GPs, health visitors, midwives and nursery nurses, answer questions from users on the following topics: • Baby and child health • Bottle-feeding • Breastfeeding • Child mental health • Domestic abuse • Maternal mental health • Sleep • Weaning • Child Maintenance Options This social support element of the site used to receive a grant from the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families to support online counsellors and health visitors, and later the Department of Health. Due to austerity budget cuts, this funding was withdrawn and the business now undertakes full funding of these services itself, costing in excess of £150,000 per annum. ==Campaigns== Thanks to the millions of parents who visit and interact in the Netmums forum each month, and commune on the Netmums social media pages each day, the site is able to quickly canvas the opinion of a robust data set of parents in the form of surveys. Over the years, the quality of insight from these surveys has led to many successful campaigns that have influenced public debate and policy. Highlights include helping prevent closures of 250 children's centres in the UK in 2011; and more recently, being selected by the Duchess of Cambridge to partner in a campaign to raise awareness of the maternal mental health needs of pregnant women and new parents in the coronavirus pandemic ==Books== Netmums has published nine books: Feeding Kids (2007), ISBN 978-0755316045 How to Be a Happy Mum: The Netmums Guide to Stress-free Family Life (2007), ISBN 978-0755316069 Toddling to Ten: Your common parenting problems solved (2008), ISBN 978-0755316076 Your Pregnancy: The Netmums Guide to Having a Baby (2009), ISBN 978-0755318001 Baby's First Year: The Netmums Guide to Being a New Mum (2009), ISBN 978-0755318018 Baby Sleep Solutions (2010), ISBN 978-0755361014 Getting Ready to Start School (2010), ISBN 978-0755361021 You and Your Tween (2011), ISBN 978-0755361090 The Ultimate Baby & Toddler Q&A: Your 50 Most Common Questions Answered (2012), ISBN 978-0755361106 ==References== References ==External links== Official website Category:Online companies of the United Kingdom Category:Internet properties established in 2000 Category:Parenting websites Category:Online support groups

Please can you let me know the best way to get this newer version of the page published? Auroraemma, who previously updated the page, left the business in 2016 and as you can see was keen to use the page to promote her new employer - Siobhan Freegard, also no longer of Netmums.

I'm keen to make sure that the page serves up relevant up to date info for 2020 users of Wikipedia looking for information on Netmums.

Many thanks in advance for your help. Annie — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

@AnnieOleary: I see your proposed edits as purely promotional, but not actually improving the overall content of the article. Your version uses external links improperly (see WP:EL) and also uses excessively promotional language, such as the UK’s most diverse, supportive and inclusive parenting website. I don't see a compelling reason to include any of your proposed edits, as they don't actually correct any information that presently exists in the article. If there are specific incorrect facts you'd like to address, please list them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

COI/Paid editor Netmums page

Hi all, I am a journalist who is working with Netmums currently and have been asked to make some updates to the Netmums Wikipedia page to bring it up to date as many of the details about the site's content, staff etc are out of date. Before I start I'm just popping this here to declare a COI and that I am being paid for my work with Netmums.

Of course, I will still be citing all of the additions I make to the page to ensure that the content on there is verifiable and useful for the user.

Thanks all!

JPjourno (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

JPjourno, As a paid editor you should not be making promotional additions to this page. You should follow the advice in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, particularly the bits about not editing live articles and use of the request edit template. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie:

Thanks for your message. My mistake, I thought I just had to flag on any edit I made that I had a COI/was a paid editor, which I have been doing. No problem though, I can do 'request edits' instead. Do I need to redo the changes I have made? I don't intend to add promotional messages, just to update the entry with the latest information on the website/team (similar to what exists for previous employees/campaigns etc). Thanks for your advice, Jess

JPjourno (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie:

I have just seen that a number of changes that were made yesterday under the account of AnnieOleary have been deleted/reverted back to the original. I was surprised to see this as another member of the wiki team – @WikiDan61 – had seemed to think they were OK bar a few tweaks.

Is it simply a case of how these changes were made? I could make them again via the 'request edit' process but wanted to see if there was anything wrong with the changes themselves?

Thanks!

JPjourno (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

JPjourno, They struck me as largely made for promotional reasons, and relying on self published sources to an unreasonable extent. Different editors may come to different conclusions. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie:

OK thanks.... could I get your advice on something then. One example of an issue with the page as it stands is it says that Netmums forums are unmoderated. This is not true. There are a team of moderators who oversee the forums. How would one go about correcting that in a way that would be acceptable to an editor such as yourself? This feels like it is not a promotional change but one that is important in giving the reader factually correct information about the website and how it is run? Not sure how else to cite this claim other than showing the page which explains who the moderators are etc.

Any advice on this would be gratefully received as don't want to end up going in circles on it as know it must be frustrating for everyone.

JPjourno (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

JPjourno, It says they aren't 'professionally' moderated. Does Netmums pay their moderators? MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie:

Yes the moderators are paid. Obviously the Netmums team has copies of their contracts etc. But not sure how that can be used as a citation?

JPjourno (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

JPjourno, I looked back through the history and this was added without a source, so I removed it as unsourced. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPjourno: To clarify, neither I nor MrOllie are "members of the wiki team". We are all just Wikipedia editors, just like you (only more experienced). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@WikiDan61:

Thanks for clarifying! It's a whole new world to me, so taking a bit of time to get my head around how it all works!

JPjourno (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie:

OK that's great – I did think it was weird that that section had no citations but was making claims about how the site was run!

If you don't mind, I'd love to pick your brains on something else then. A lot of the info about the site is out of date – for example it says in the intro paragraph 'as of 2012...' which is now nearly a decade ago. It would be good to update the page to bring it up to the present in terms of what the site is/what platforms Netmums operates across etc. I don't think this is just promotional – it's again just updating the page to reflect the business as it stands so users get up to date info. But do you have any advice on how to do this in a way that wouldn't be perceived as being promotional or inappropriate?

Thanks so much!

JPjourno (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: @WikiDan61: @Diannaa:

Hi all, I know you have all made some comments on recent edits on the Netmums page, so thought it would be useful to loop you all in to this discussion.

I am a freelance journalist working with Netmums currently (I have declared my COI and that I am a paid editor above).

I am looking to make some updates to the Netmums entry to bring it up to date. At the moment, it talks about what the site offers as of 2012, so the entry is almost a decade out of date in that respect and so not very useful for readers. However, because of my connection with the brand, if I update the details on what the site offers/the platforms it operates across in 2021 it seems to get removed because it is perceived as promotional.

I'd really appreciate it if you could give some advice on how to go about bringing the page up to date in a way that isn't seen as promotional/doesn't conflict with any Wikipedia rules.

Perhaps we can reach a bit of a consensus here so we're not going back and forth on edits which I know must be frustrating.

Thanks so much all!

JPjourno (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't copy anything from the organization's website. It's copyright, and we don't accept copyright material. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

JPjourno, If you have general questions about proper wikipedia style, widely viewed forums such as WP:TEAHOUSE are a good place to ask, rather than pinging individual editors. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

The opening section of this page currently refers to the structure/size of the site in 2012 which is nearly a decade ago. So I am looking to add some up to date information about what the site is like now to make the article accurate/useful in the present day.

This is my suggested addition:

As of 2021, Netmums has a Facebook page, Instagram account and the Netmums' Influencers Network channel on YouTube – with over 1.5million followers across them. Sources: https://www.facebook.com/Netmums https://www.instagram.com/netmums/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC43QDbPR1s23wM4utg03ZGg [NB. You can see the Facebook page alone has over 1.5m followers]

Plus, the Netmums team launched a new podcast, Sweat, Snot & Tear‪s‬, in 2020 – with celebrity guests including Joe Wicks, Paloma Faith and Dermot O’Leary [Source: https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/sweat-snot-tears/id1534163561] – which has been announced as a finalist for Podcast of the Year in The Drum's Online Media Awards 2021 [source: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/04/01/find-out-who-s-finalist-the-drum-awards-online-media-2021]

Hope this all sounds good. If there are any issues with the additions/sources it would be great to know what so that I can amend.

Just to flag here I have a COI and am a paid editor as disclosed at the top of the page/my user page.

Thanks all!

JPjourno (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPjourno: While it is true that the "As of 2012..." sentence could be updated with newer figures, that would need an independent source. That also applies to info about various social media channels and pages; if independent sources have discussed them, they would have encyclopedic relevance, otherwise not. That an organisation uses social media is not an encyclopedic fact in itself.

Are there any independent sources discussing the podcast? thedrum.com only mentions the title in the list of nominees, and the podcasts.apple.com link is the podcast itself, which can't be used for the same reason we can't use a Facebook page as a source for how popular that Facebook page is. If the podcast wins the Drum award, and if that is discussed by independent sources, it might be worth including it, but nominations are usually not listed except for very notable awards. This award is not shown to be notable (according to Wikipedia's definition of notability). --bonadea contributions talk 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea:

Thanks for coming back to me on this and for your thoughts on sources etc – really helpful!

I thought the best way forward might be to tackle one thing at a time. So the Podcast – there are loads of independent sources talking about the podcast and the guests. So I would like to request this edit to the opening par...

In 2020 Netmums launched a podcast – Sweat, Snot & Tears – which has featured celebrity guests including Vernon Kay, Nadiya Hussain, Myleene Klass, Anton Du Beke, Ronan Keating, Katherine Jenkins, and Jessica Plummer.

Sources: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9240647/Tess-Daly-shares-snap-romantic-message-husband-Vernon-Kay-left-her.html (extensive quoting from Netmums podcast interview with Vernon) https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/16/nadiya-hussain-adopt-child-husband-13435017/ (news story based on podcast interview with Nadiya) https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/lifestyle/a34491710/anton-du-beke-strictly-scores/ (news story based on podcast interview with Anton) https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ronan-keating-vows-vasectomy-after-23056281 (news story based on podcast interview with Ronan) https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/showbiz/katherine-jenkins-reveals-family-tragedy-19271774 (news story based on interview with Katherine) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9290575/Former-EastEnders-star-Jessica-Plummer-says-mourned-character-Chantelle.html (news story based on interview with Jessica) https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/14290438/kate-garraway-supported-myleene-klass-derek-covid-battle/ (news story based on podcast interview with Myleene)

I have chosen guests to mention that all have their own Wikipedia pages so are considered notable according to Wikipedia. All of the above sources that talk about their appearance on the Netmums podcast are all national press. Plus, you can see that in the articles there is extensive quoting from the podcast showing that it is considered notable and worthy of mention.

Please let me know if this would be an acceptable edit?

Thanks again!

JPjourno (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. First of all, most of those publications should not be used as sources. This list can be helpful when you determine whether a source should be used at all; it doesn't identify every single possible source in the world, but it lists a number of sources whose reliability has been frequently discussed, and where there is a general consensus. As you'll see in that list, Daily Mail, Metro, and The Sun are not considered to be reliable sources, so those can be discounted at once. I looked at the Good Housekeeping source and the walesonline source, and neither one discussed the podcast – it was only mentioned in passing as the source of the stories. In fact, you describe those articles above as news stories based on podcast interviews, so I assume the same is true for the rest of the links you provided. Keep in mind that having notable guests is not in itself a sign of notability.

Adding brief information about the podcast doesn't require multiple in-depth sources (that would be necessary for a standalone article about the podcast, but not for just mentioning its existence in this article), but as long as there isn't a reliable independent source talking about the podcast, even briefly, it is better to leave it out. As for the text itself, it would probably be more helpful to say something about the content in general, rather than listing celebrity guests. I would have expected that a podcast run by a website with advice for parents would also be focused on parenting issues, but from the interviews I read it doesn't look like that is the focus at all? --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea:

Thanks for coming back to me. To your last point – the celebrities interviewed are all parents, talking about their experiences of parenting.

In terms of getting the podcast included on the page, my understanding is that every single statement on a page doesn't need to be deemed "notable" (in Wikipedia terms). See below:

"WP:NOTEWORTHY The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria."

So I would've thought to simply add in a mention that the podcast exists, the fact that it is on every popular podcast streaming platform and there are multiple articles (some which do not come from sources that you note are in the unreliable list) would be more than enough? And then whether that warrants a mention on the page... well if you have a wikipedia entry about a media brand, surely it would be best that it reflects what the brand is made up of to explain that to the user otherwise it's not really giving them accurate/useful information?

I really appreciate your help with this – just finding it odd that it's so hard to get a simple statement of fact included that makes the entry more up to date.

Thanks JPjourno (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have decided to close the above request. I am unsure of what text is proposed to be added. In response to your question about including podcasts: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Wikipedia does not want to add every piece of information about a topic, but rather the most noteworthy and on-topic information. In order for a product (like a podcast) to be included, it must have significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary sources (like news articles.) I suggest making a new request below, if you haven't already done so, with the exact text you want to include and the sources listed. Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea:

Oh one other thing... if the Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source, please can you remove the statement: In April 2017, Netmums signed a data partnership with the Daily Mail newspaper's website MailOnline, aiming to offer advertisers more accurate market segmentation and targeted advertising of its audience of UK mothers, and to allow Netmums to validate what portion of their audience were regular users of the MailOnline website or app.[16]

This partnership is not in existence and the citation for it has been given from the Daily Mail itself which (a) per your comments above is not deemed reliable and (b) is an original source.

Thanks so much!

I removed the sentence. It can be added back into the article when another source is provided. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section on campaigns the last mention is of a campaign in 2014 – 7 years ago. It would be great to update this with more recent campaign work to give the user a picture of the kind of work Netmums is involved in in the present day, making this Wikipedia entry more current.

So my suggested edit is as follows:

In 2020 Netmums was invited by the Duchess of Cambridge to partner in a campaign to raise awareness of the maternal mental health needs of pregnant women and new parents in the coronavirus pandemic.

Source: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a32352874/kate-middleton-maternal-mental-health-week-zoom-call/

Do let me know if any issues with the edit/source and I can amend.

Thanks all!

AnnieOleary (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@AnnieOleary: I have declined to add this to the article. The proposed information is not verified by the source; the source only says that Kate Middleton commented on their work, not that she partnered with the organisation. If a new source is provided, this request can be reposted below. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request – claim without citation for removal

Hi there,

I'd like to request the removal of the following statement on the Netmums Wikipedia page:

In 2016, Netmums made a post-tax profit of £1,518,962 on a turnover of £5,064,760 (down 33% from 2015).[15]

The citation for this claim drives to a website that has no such information on it. As such, the claim does not have any citation.

Let me know if any issues with having this taken down.

Thank you!

JPjourno (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I fixed the citation rather than removing it. - MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Request edit – update to intro

Hey there!

I would like to put forward an edit for the opening section of the Netmums Wikipedia page. It currently talks about how the site was structured in 2000 when it launched, and in 2012. As this is now a decade ago, the entry is currently quite out of date in terms of how the site runs/what's on it.

I'd suggest the following line is added at the end of the intro paragraphs:

Netmums now features trending daily news stories, advice for parents, listings of family-friendly activities and outings, and ideas of fun things to do with kids.

Source: http://www.eparenting.co.uk/parenting/top_uk_parenting_websites.php

As part of this change, I would also request that this sentence is changed to past tense: It operates as a network of local sites, and offers information to both mothers and fathers about parenting.

So it would read: It operated as a network of local sites, offering...

This is because this is no longer how the site works, as the above source shows – it has become more than a collection of local websites.

Please let me know if there are any issues with this edit/source. Although there are a lot of ways the website has changed since 2012, I have stuck closely to only mentioning the ones that are backed up by this source.

Thanks!

JPjourno (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPjourno: do you have a better source - a look over this site suggests that it doesn't have sufficient editorial control to be viewed as reliable source. I didn't want to reject it, as otherwise the changes would seem reasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear and JPjourno: was there a response to this request? If not, can we close this as abandoned? Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no answer to this request, I am closing it. A new request can be posted if the editor returns. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)