User talk:BC1278/sandbox/how (book)

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

BC1278 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Nextdoor on their behalf.

I commented at the current article,soI am going to comment here also. I find this version unacceptable. It is not about the book. It's advocacy for the method of analysis presented in the book. There is no indication this method is notable enough for an article of its one, so trying to devote most of the article about the book (and the book is definitely notable because of the NYT bestseller status) is a unbalanced presentation, essentially a coatrack. Enough needs to be presented to say what the book is about--but in anycase it needs to be in neutral language, not the present enthusiastic adjective-ridden attempt to show how very important the problems are and how much the world needs this method. This version is a good indication of what comes of paid editing, which inevitably will say what the person paying for the article wants to say.

DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The changes in here were presented piecemeal as Request Edits on the Talk page of the existing article in the mainspace. It went through major rewrites during the very extensive independent review process. The review process could not have been more thorough. So it seems to me that the process of revealing a COI, then getting an independent review, worked as intended. The alternative is what's the norm of the thousands of daily changes on Wikipedia - editors with a COI don't disclose and don't go through an independent review. I could think of many ways to curb or eliminate the massive issue of undisclosed COI and agenda editing on Wikipedia.19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]