Talk:Whistleblower Aid

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been unresponsive to pings despite on-Wiki activity; article issues have remained largely unaddressed.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen was represented by the legal assistance organization Whistleblower Aid, a recipient of funding from the self-styled "philanthropic investment firm" Omidyar Network?

Source: "The Facebook whistleblower whose disclosures have shaken the world’s largest social network has drawn behind-the-scenes help from a big player in the online world: Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire tech critic who founded eBay."

"Omidyar’s financial support, which was previously unreported, offers one of the most striking examples yet of how Frances Haugen’s disclosures have generated enthusiasm among critics of U.S. tech giants — offering a potentially crucial boost as she takes on one of the world’s most powerful companies. This gives her an edge that many corporate whistleblowers lack as she warns lawmakers, regulators and media organizations on both sides of the Atlantic that Facebook is endangering society by putting “profits before people.”"

"Omidyar’s global philanthropic organization Luminate is handling Haugen’s press and government relations in Europe, and his foundation last year gave $150,000 to Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit organization that is providing Haugen’s legal representation and advice."

Politico

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WWJ-TV

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk) and Jaredscribe (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 04:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC). [reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - ?
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Eligibility looks good - long enough and hook is sourced. The article feels a little promotional, especially the second paragraph of 'History.' I would also edit the article to make it more clear how Haugen's actions and Omidyar are related, since that's what the hook focuses on. Once those things are fixed, we should be good to go! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: any thoughts on the comments above? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ll add a bit more and perhaps make a second hook. Thriley (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley, it's been over three weeks since your last comment without any edits to the article or posts here. I think allowing seven more days for the work to be done is reasonable. I hope to see it done; if not, the nomination may be marked for closure at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: As it has been seven days without a response or any edits to the article, the nomination is now marked for closure. If you want the nomination to continue, please comment here and address the concerns. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take care of this in the next few hours. My apologies for the delay. Thriley (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about ALT1 ... that shortly after Frances Haugen took the thousands of files that would be released in the 2021 Facebook leak, she contacted Whistleblower Aid to ask for assistance? Thriley (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issues seem to also include the article itself rather than just the hooks, so the promotion concerns mentioned above need to be addressed if they haven't already. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, Narutolovehinata5, given the lack of any further editing to address the neutrality issues that were first raised on 22 April, I'd suggest that this DYK nomination be closed and archived. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll add some additional info soon. Thriley (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been ongoing for a while without most of the issues being addressed. The remaining issues must be addressed soon, otherwise the nomination will be closed. @Thriley: Please rectify the concerns as soon as possible. Given how long the nomination has been ongoing, another week at most is probably the most the nomination can be given, considering the circumstances. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not respond to the above ping and given that a week has passed the nomination has now been closed. If there is a desire to have this re-opened, let me know or leave a message at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits issue Dec 2023

Tried to make edits for this cuz the page is super super out of date and I'm generally interested in whistleblower content

Pls advise about best ways to submit edits - happy to revise any language that is an issue! Mundanepitch (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to make incremental edits. On your user page it says that you have a conflict of interest involving Libby Liu, the CEO of Whistleblower Aid. Is this correct? It would be best to propose edits on this talk page instead of making them directly if you have a conflict of interest. Thriley (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh I didn't see that on the user page

I hope the edits I made aren't deleted but if not can I add them here and propose them on the talk page? I think they're important edits/corrections but don't want to overstep Mundanepitch (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise about next steps to take - my edits are thoroughly sourced. Would you want me to link it on the talk page? Mundanepitch (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mundanepitch:, please edit the article in increments. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding Whistleblower Aid? Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if so. Thriley (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advising - I started to make incremental edits at first but then felt like the page needed a whole re-do. No COI, just a civil society org whose work I'm familiar with. I just worked on the edits for a while. Is there a particular problem with any of them? If you're the editor on the page is there a way you can take a look at the previous version and let me know? Happy to make the changes! Mundanepitch (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A whole redo is typically best left to experienced editors. You should add on more sections or expand the current ones. You have removed the COI notice from your user page regarding Libby Liu, the CEO of Whistleblower Aid. If you have a COI, you should request edits based on what is advised in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thriley (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No COI - but I've done my fair amount of edits before it was just a while ago haha. But any issue with the actual edits? Can we loop in a third editor to look at this? No worries if you don't have time - but the edits are very well sourced (much more than the current page) and I think it's much more helpful to readers. Let me know! Mundanepitch (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are being evasive. Can you directly answer my question about your relationship with Libby Liu? Thriley (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No relationship! No COI I thought I mentioned that before - sorry for the confusion, any other questions? Mundanepitch (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then why did you have a Conflict of Interest statement on your user page? Thriley (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where that came from that's why I removed it when you mentioned it I didn't know it was there. Again I mentioned before sorry for the confusion about that. Any citation issues though? Mundanepitch (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on Omidyar - happy to put that back in case that's the main issue of concern? Again no COI, no payment by anyone haha

Feel free to put it back in too - the original WBA article was pretty ill-sourced and out of date just wanted to make it more comprehensive and more in line with other articles about NGOs. Mundanepitch (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait around a week or so but afterwards I'll remove the COI tag unless anyone else can address it. Mundanepitch (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. The basic question is - how could you once have had a COI with the organization's CEO, and yet now have no COI with the organization as a whole? There's a logical disconnect there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that COI tag came on there and I removed it as soon as I was alerted to it by the other editor. I won't remove the tag per your note, I just want to mention that the edits are all sourced from well-established news organizations - I put a note on the other thread about moving the edits to the talk page I just am not sure how to do that. Mundanepitch (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tag was added by you in September 2020. Are there multiple people using this account? Thriley (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't! I just haven't used this account in a long time so I don't remember making that addition. Mundanepitch (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Per COI notice - Mundanepitch has written the entire article but has a conflict of interest notice (now removed) regarding Libby Liu, the CEO of Whistleblower Aid. RetroCosmos (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have another editor look over the content to make sure it's properly sourced etc? Mundanepitch (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait around a week or so but afterwards I'll remove the COI tag unless anyone else can address it. Mundanepitch (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note - there's nothing wrong with having a COI. If you do, you just have to disclose it, and then make suggestions on the talk page, which other editors will likely implement (assuming they are neutral and well-sourced). If you would like to see lasting changes made to this article, and do happen to have a COI, the easiest route to make changes which stick is to disclose the COI and make suggestions on the talk page. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense to me - I just don't have a COI I'm not sure where that tag had come from before. But I also don't mind running the edits by other editors in the talk page and have someone else approve it it sounds like that is the best solution? I just think the older page was not comprehensive so I didn't want to just revert it back to the old one and leave it there.

Any tips on how I can go about moving the edit to the talk page for you or anyone else to review? I just edited live on the page when I did it Mundanepitch (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added the COI tag yourself to your own userpage when you created it back in September 2020. You can make a suggestion for a change by using the Edit Request Wizard (probably easier) or following the 'How to Use' instructions at Template:Edit COI (a little more complex). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw forgot to reply but thanks for this this was the most helpful reply as to what I could have done so far haha I did submit that and currently see it below! :) Mundanepitch (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey I noticed you reverted the page - I added an edit request wiki but just wanted to flag that my request phrasing assumed that the page hadn't been reverted. Do you want me to redo the request? I just want to make sure whichever editor comes in isn't thrown off by the page looking the same as before 108.28.26.207 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The request is fine (assuming you are Mundanepitch?) - I'm sure an interested editor will come along and review it at some point soon. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811I think the problem I was worried about happened haha - I made the edit request per your ask but because you reverted the page after that request, the editor was not able to review it on the talk page.

Can you either revert the page or make a separate edit request? I've tried to do everything to clear up this issue but since I don't have any actual COI, it's just Thrilley thinking I do, I'll want to revert the edits back to the better-sourced page I made eventually unless you can make a separate edit wizard request. Let me know! 108.51.228.81 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was mundanepitch btw sorry I was not logged in Mundanepitch (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make a new edit request yourself and include the text you would like to change/add this time? —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can but the edits I had made I had just done in one sitting on the page before and there's honestly quite a lot of them. It would probably take me hours of work to make a cohesive edit request that covers the edits I made cuz I was just kind of researching and doing it, not keeping a copy on a separate page of the edits or something like that.

Happy to make a new edit request, but my initial request was before the article was reverted, and so it would have been a pretty easy way for an editor to look over it. What do you think about reverting the page back to my edits and I can make the edits request if you want, I just don't have the time/energy to make an entire 5 page edit request and feel like I shouldn't have to considering I've done it already and cited all my sources in the article.

It feels like the final version of the page should be focused on quality, rather than just taking one editors word that the old version is better despite it having significantly less citations. I think through this whole process, no one has actually taken a good look at the changes themselves, which really just hurts readers at the end since they are getting lower quality content that is not well sourced from wikipedia with the version currently up.

I'll wait on your lead since I want to be as respectful as possible in this process, but I am not sure it's fair to ask me to write a massive edit request page when I had already done the work on making the edits and they are here for anyone to see. I'm happy to do another request if you think reverting the page is okay, and then the editor can come in and review the article as is and remove anything they feel like is problematic. Not sure if there is a better way to do this, but open to suggestions! Mundanepitch (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is fundamental - a lack of good faith. One of Wikipedia's core principles is to assume other editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia, not harm it. I believe that about you. I don't think you're here to harm Wikipedia. It's reasonable to want this article to be up to date and comprehensive. But good faith goes two ways and requires honesty and openness.

I am not willing to make the changes you seek myself because I don't believe they were prepared from a neutral, uninvolved perspective. Your answers on COI have been unpersuasive. As an editor, you have exclusively focused on Libby Liu and associated topics (Radio Free Asia and Whistleblower Aid among them). This gives the appearance of someone who is here only because they are interested in expanding the coverage of one particular person, not someone interested in contributing to the encyclopedia in general. You yourself have previously described yourself as having a COI. If you want to persuade another editor to make the changes you seek, you will have to be willing to do the work to go through the regular Wikipedia process of an edit request. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I never got around to this! I was not asking you to make edits yourself but also just to make things easier I actually reached out to the organization and I think they will submit an edit request and just say its coming directly from them I'm not sure if it'll be anything like this edit but I figured that's a clearer path? Again I'm not affiliated with the org haha I just figured they'd respond to an email about this and they did! Mundanepitch (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The requested changes were not specific enough.

What I think should be changed (include citations):

I have already made the edits on the page, but there was a misunderstanding where some users thought that I had a conflict of interest that I do not have. As a result, a COI tag was added to the page. So I figured I would submit a request here to have a third editor come in and review the edits I made and revoke/adjust anything they see fit, but I just didn't want the page I worked on to have those tags.

Why it should be changed:

The older page was out of date since 2020, and there were a lot of cases (including some referenced in a Biden SOTU speech) that were not discussed in the previous page. I made the page more comprehensive and inline with wikipedia's guidelines on nonprofit organizations.

Mundanepitch (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 16-JAN-2024

Unable to review The changes that are requested to be made need to appear here on the talk page. Regards, Spintendo 17:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@thrilley @Ganesha811 Let me know if you have any thoughts on what to do here - I tried to follow your instructions re getting a new editor to look over but I think your reversion of the page made it hard/impossible for them to review. Let me know if you have any tips! Mundanepitch (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]