Talk:WikiExperts

NPOV

This article needs some help getting more balance - at the moment, it seems that it is here to present a pro-paid editing case for WikiExperts.us - a series of quotes, none of which are fully balanced, (and only one of which is balanced at all), each stating how WikiExperts.us are necessary and provide a good service. As the sources I can access don't generally discuss the company in any depth, (except for one, which we can pull more balanced commentary out of), it will probably need more digging to get things more neutral. - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure an NPOV tag is the best option here; maybe a tag reflecting the promotional tone. Either way the fix should be the same I guess, reworking the page into something more neutral. I've researched all the sources out there; the only ones that exist in the major press do not cover the controversial nature of paid-editing on Wikipedia, nor do they mention anything about Wikipedia specifically having an issue directly with this company in particular. So digging for more sources isn't likely to turn anything up. So... let's rewrite the article to get rid of the promotionality and see what happens. If what is meant by balance here is that it should include material not found in any of the sources, that's probably not a good reason to have an NPOV tag, however I agree that the writing could be much more neutral. SoundsOfNature (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Reducing the promotional tone is never a bad idea, but my main concern is that the article presents claims uncritically, in spite of there being criticism available, including in some of the sources. For example, the view that Wikipedia should be supported by ads, as presented by Moschini, is countered in the same source being used to reference her view, but that isn't covered here. The article needs to be better balanced. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and added additional content for balance, as well as some new articles for greater context. New content includes Wikipedia's response to WE in the Economist found at the end of the first paragraph of the Company overview section, and insertions from the Economist and the Signpost into the two new sections that highlight the key points of contention between WE and Wikipedia. By drawing the conflict of interest section into its own subsection, this ensures it is not lost in the text. I've also removed some quasi-puff sentences in favor of more factual information. In all I've double the amount of sources and tried to integrate your concerns into the piece. To be honest, there are zero reliable sources that tie WikiExperts to a conflict of interest or conflict of interest policies (I spent an hour searching for them), so having this here to begin with I think is slanted towards the negative on the neutrality scale, though obviously it is important in the context of Wikipedia for policy reasons. I only point that out as it gives context as to how much neutrality is actually being applied here.

Would you mind reviewing the new page and letting me know if this work is sufficient to remove the neutrality tag at the top of the article. Sorry it took so long to get at this, it wasn't really a priority but I found some time this morning after seeing the Notability tag that was added. I've removed that as with double the previous pages sources the page should definitely pass GNG. SoundsOfNature (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some sources Bilby removed in the excise that should be put back in later on (such as the CNN interview about WE) but that's besides the point for now. Does everyone agree that we can remove the neutrality tag at the top, or should we move a step further? I think we accidentally removed some of the anti-WE sources involved here that could be put back in as well. I've been monitoring this page for a bit since their February 2013 press release, and am thinking that maybe it is better to outright delete the page... maybe not notable enough. Thanks for removing the PR-based study :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately, I think that the points of concern changed a bit, but still remained present. It may be that your own involvement with the company will make it difficult for edits to be neutral, but the biggest new problem was the inclusion of content of questionable merit that made it read more like a promotional piece. The sections on banner advertisements and the fortune 500 study raised concerns, so for the moment I've removed them both for discussion. The banner advertisements piece became better balanced, but it ended having questionable relevance - it is not related to WikiExperts.us except in regard to Konanykhin raising the issue, and not really balanced with the key point - the WMF receives sufficient funding through donations that this is a non-issue. The Fortune 500 study suffers from being unreliable - a company running their own study that shows how their services are required is not a significant event.

I'm not sure about removing the tag at the moment, but it is probably ok. My main concern right now is the Conflict of INterest policy section, which repeats the claim that WikiExperts.us comply with Wikipedia policies, while at the same time pointing out that the COI policy discourages what they are doing. But it is not a major concern. - Bilby (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

These guys hit me up on LinkedIN trolling for clients. Their sales pitch is basically "let us be your sock puppet" Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

PROD

I have reviewed the sources for this page and have determined the following. Numbers 1 and 2 are indexing websites that provide no sign of notability. Number 3 is the company's website (non-RS), and Number 4 is a Wikipedia page. Numbers 5 is a passing mentions only. Number 6 is a questionable publication, but even if it is RS, it is about the launch of the company--and you will see, no additional articles have been published since that time that are RS. Number 7 is a passing mention. Number 8 is the company president talking about Wikipedia in general, not even the company, as is number 9. Number 10 is an interview with the founder of the site, not an independent third-party article. Number 11 in a Wikimedia page. Number 12 was written by the company's president. Number 13 is a passing mention. Number 14 is a press release published on the company's own website. For these reasons I am prodding the article, in case someone can find sources that would improve it. Alternator Abv (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WikiExperts. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wikiexperts.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)