User talk:Bigflamingo

August 2019

Hello, I'm Lincolnite. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Parliamentary Review have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I do not understand why the last 3 edits were removed? They were not promotional and were merely clarifying a number of incorrect statements initially made under your edits. I appreciate my initial edits circa June may have not been in line with guidelines, but I have now familiarised myself with the guidelines. Removing the inaccurate figure of £3,500 is surely in line with Wikipedia's rules as edits made for the sake of accuracy and clarity?

I have also been accused of "blanking" when in reality I have actually just been removing very minor pieces of inaccurate content. Could you please let me know what the issue is with the previous edits?

I also do not understand why lists of previous contributors were removed from The Parliamentary Review page. Bigflamingo (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Two points:

Firstly, do you have a conflict of interest in editing the article on The Parliamentary Review? Per WP:COI, "conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."

Secondly, you should not remove content that is properly sourced, particularly to replace it with content that is totally unsourced. In this situation, we have a national newspaper that is independent of the subject of the article saying the £3,500 figure is accurate and you, without any reference whatsoever, claiming that "the £3,500 figure is NOT accurate". The better referenced claim is the one from the national newspaper that is independent of the subject of the article so it's the one that has to stay.

Lincolnite (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

No COI -- I was approached to work with The Parliamentary Review but turned them down as my small printing business was unable to afford the cost. As someone in the sector, however, I am aware of their presence and have encountered them a lot. One of my own competitors publishes and distributes their document, but I have no link to them. The UK P2P subsector of publishing is something I have been involved in for more than 30 years. It as an area gets a lot of negative attention especially in the SME B2B arena and I feel that without proper explanation this is unjust, but I know I cannot let that bias affect Wikipedia editing. As such is my decision to get the truth published!

I have since seen, however, that there has been a lot of negative attention regarding the organisation. I have spoken with members of the team several times out of pure interest and they seem utterly bewildered at such a response. I was asked to contribute £2,500, a friend of mine was asked to contribute £4,200, which is why I feel the £3,500 figure is inaccurate. There are further details here, specifically under the "How is The Parliamentary Review funded?" question: https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/faqs

As part of my "pseudo-investigation" I have spoken to a variety of former representatives listed on their website, and as I said, I have discovered some of them have been featured for free.

Is it a Wikipedia policy to take one figure from a secondary source (newspaper) rather than using the willingly disclosed information from a primary source (the organisation's website)?

I would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

Bigflamingo (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As another thought, would it be worth me asking someone from The Parliamentary Review to update their page with information about the organisation, as long as a COI is declared? I think they are concerned about the potential inaccuracy of the article. I am obviously somewhat new to Wikipedia so confused as to how the best way is to proceed. As a representative of the sector I feel this is heavily inaccurate.

Bigflamingo (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In reply to your question, yes it is absolutely Wikipedia policy to give independent secondary sources (e.g., newspapers) credence over primary sources that are not independent of the subject of the article. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources (RS) for more information on which sources are considered reliable.

Secondly, you mention that you have conducted a "pseudo-investigation". While this is laudable, the results of your "psudeo-investigation" cannot be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on original research is as follows: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. See Wikipedia:No original research (OR) for more information on this policy.

Thirdly, in response to your question about whether someone from the organisation could update their page with information about the organisation in accordance with WP:COI, the answer is yes but the information would need to come from a reliable source in accordance with the RS policy and it could not include original research per the OR policy. So information on their pricing would only be admissible if it were published in a reliable source. It would not be enough for someone that works there to say "I know the true pricing: it's x or y". I realise that these restrictions may seem bureaucratic and bewildering but they are there for good reason: to ensure that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising forum.

Hope that's helpful, Lincolnite (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lincolnite,

That's incredibly helpful. What I'll then do is use the articles published by The Times, The Mirror and Schools Week and the figures published in there to try and paint a clearer picture.

I am aware of some other local newspapers which have published further details, so I'll go ahead and use those too. Understand I have to stick to the guidelines and my apologies for the earlier errors -- I had simply assumed it was a priority to get good info up.

My "investigation" has as yet not revealed any results, so I will make sure everything is suitably referenced by reputable news sources. I will of course avoid sponsored info and advertorials.

Can you confirm it would be OK for me to edit again as long as I cite and reference appropriately?

Bigflamingo (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I have some reservations about your making direct edits to the article. This is because your account appears to be a single purpose account. Per Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

It's fair to say that you have not, to date, avoided creating the impression that your focus on this topic is non-neutral. An apparent conflict of interest (per WP:APPARENTCOI) refers to editors who edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. You mention above that you "have spoken with members of the team several times" and thus you have confirmed that you are actually in communication with the business owner or his employees. This creates an apparent conflict of interest. That, along with your previous edits, call into question whether you can be a non-neutral editor of this article.

As such, I'd request that you use the edit request process (see Wikipedia:Edit requests) on the article's talk page rather than making edits directly. We'll then need consensus before making changes to the article. Ideally there would be multiple experienced editors taking part in the discussion on the talk page, not just me. There are various noticeboards on Wikipedia that we can use to encourage experienced editors to join the discussion. By experienced editors, I mean people who've been editing Wikipedia for 1+ year and who have contributed hundreds of edits to dozens of articles. I've got 14 years and 15,000 edits under my belt but would appreciate the opinion of others in coming to a consensus on edit requests.

Lincolnite (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)