User talk:FMK GP

Independent Online

Hi There,

I reverted your recent change to Independent Online as you removed a lot of non-contentious and well sourced information, are there any specific claims in there you take issue with?

JeffUK 20:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IOL takes great care to maintain its digital reputation and ensure that public perception is based on accurate, balanced information. However, the present iteration of the page contains biased information, which we believe has been influenced by sources linked to our direct competitors. This is detrimental to our reputation in several ways:

Bias and Misinformation: The current page includes statements that reflect a negative bias against IOL. These are often supported by references to articles published by competing media outlets, which are not objective sources. Such content can mislead readers and create a skewed narrative about our platform.
Damage to Public Perception: By presenting selective and potentially inaccurate information, the page undermines the credibility of our publication. This damages the trust that our readers and business partners place in us, impacting not only our audience’s perception but also our business relationships and digital footprint.
Need for an Informational Focus: We believe that the Wikipedia page should serve as a neutral, informational resource, similar to an "About Us" page. It should focus on IOL's history, services, and contribution to digital journalism in South Africa without editorialized content or competitive slants.

Request for Action:

Revision: We would like to see the content revised to be neutral, balanced, and focused on providing basic information about IOL, similar to how other media outlets are represented on Wikipedia.
Page Protection: To prevent future issues with biased edits, we would like to go as far as to have the page locked from edits by unregistered users and individuals with potential conflicts of interest. This would help maintain the integrity of the information and ensure that it remains factual.

We are committed to transparency and accuracy in all aspects of our operations and believe that a fair representation on Wikipedia is crucial for both our audience and the integrity of online information.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I am happy to collaborate on providing accurate information that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. FMK GP (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't suggested any specific edits I'm afraid I can't help any further (I'm just passing through, and don't have time to get involved in this right now.); the FAQ For Article Subjects may be of use for info on where to go from here, especially Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#ATTACK. JeffUK 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused by this. I literally gave you all the reasons that my edits were necessary and how they affect our business due to the information currently on the page being biased and quite frankly flat out lies about our platform? You can see by my amendments that i am not trying to sugar coat our company but rather putting up FACTUAL information about our platform?? FMK GP (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, your edits included deleting pretty much the entire existing article and replacing it with a puff-piece. That's not the same as a specific edit to address specific concerns. Please read the information provided to you about how Wikipedia works. JeffUK 08:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello FMK GP. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:FMK GP. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=FMK GP|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRN,

I actually do work for iol.co.za and as i have mentioned to one of the other mods, IOL takes great care to maintain its digital reputation and ensure that public perception is based on accurate, balanced information. However, the present iteration of the page contains biased information, which we believe has been influenced by sources linked to our direct competitors. This is detrimental to our reputation in several ways:

Bias and Misinformation: The current page includes statements that reflect a negative bias against IOL. These are often supported by references to articles published by competing media outlets, which are not objective sources. Such content can mislead readers and create a skewed narrative about our platform.
Damage to Public Perception: By presenting selective and potentially inaccurate information, the page undermines the credibility of our publication. This damages the trust that our readers and business partners place in us, impacting not only our audience’s perception but also our business relationships and digital footprint.
Need for an Informational Focus: We believe that the Wikipedia page should serve as a neutral, informational resource, similar to an "About Us" page. It should focus on IOL's history, services, and contribution to digital journalism in South Africa without editorialized content or competitive slants.

Request for Action:

Revision: We would like to see the content revised to be neutral, balanced, and focused on providing basic information about IOL, similar to how other media outlets are represented on Wikipedia.
Page Protection: To prevent future issues with biased edits, we would like to go as far as to have the page locked from edits by unregistered users and individuals with potential conflicts of interest. This would help maintain the integrity of the information and ensure that it remains factual.

We are committed to transparency and accuracy in all aspects of our operations and believe that a fair representation on Wikipedia is crucial for both our audience and the integrity of online information.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I am happy to collaborate on providing accurate information that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Please let me know what I need to do to make this important page, simply a page that shows who we are and what we do as opposed to a direct attack on us from competitors?

FMK GP (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I now revert back to my previous version? FMK GP (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not your company's article, it is an article about your company; that is an important distinction. Your company has no right of ownership or control over the content of the article. You cannot tell others not to edit the article and it will not be "locked down" at a version that you prefer. Any editor can edit any article at any time. We assume good faith of others unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent.

Wikipedia articles are paraphrased summaries of content previously published by reliable and independent sources. Readers expect articles about notable topics that are reliably sourced and neutrally worded, written independently of their subjects. Both positive and negative information about a topic is fair game provided that it is neutrally worded and presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Obvious vandalism or libellous content can be reverted without discussion, but these have to be clear-cut cases that others would not challenge.

Because you are a paid editor working for the article's subject, you should not make any direct edits to it. Instead, you should learn the process of making edit requests on the article's talk page (Talk:Independent Online). This will give third-party editors a chance to review your proposed changes and suggest revisions. The goal is to achieve consensus through a process of discussion and compromise. If this fails to resolve the disagreement, then there are further dispute resolution measures available. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]