Talk:The Michael J. Fox Foundation

message: — Assignment last updated by Hortur0 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

message: It is laudable that someone wants to fix the identified problems of an over-reliance on primary sources and a promotional tone without taking the extreme recent step of removing the article from view entirely. I would suggest however that edits like these  go too far, and leave readers with a false impression of what the Foundation is actually doing. Yes, ideally nothing on Wikipedia would be sourced to the horse's mouth, but that goal should not let perfection be the enemy of the informative. This is precisely why primary sources are allowed and they are considered real sources. Doctor Maripol (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't source any extraordinary claim to the organization. We also can't source trivial details to the organization. What I removed was either extraordinary (largest non-profitfunder, for instance) or trivial organizational detail. Valereee (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you removed in that specifc edit was neither extraordinary or trivial. Doctor Maripol (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That language was promotional in tone. Find someone somewhere else who is saying that. If no one else is saying it, it's the company's self-promotional marketing language. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm a bit surprised at how many people at ANI fell for this troll/LTA act. I'm also surprised that someone who's been trying to get into Wikipedia for so long still doesn't understand the rules. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, @Drmies, sorry, are you saying you still believe the article should be a redirect? I'm actually finding sources, some of which are describing it in ways that would indicate independent notability. Valereee (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, , not at all--I'm talking about the ANI thread and what they showed there. I'm not contesting notability of the subject based on the content. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the whole thing seems kind of sad. Is it even possible for someone to understand they aren't being gaslighted if their definition of gaslighting includes "someone is telling me my understanding is incorrect"? It's very meta. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive removal of primary source content 

message: Hey, , per the discussion at ANI I've trimmed this of unsourced and self-sourced content. This is what can be saved from this article, and really we need to look for sources that support notability, as I'm sure this subject is notable, but the sources aren't enough to prove it. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be sufficient sourcing out there: here's a google search of news for the foundation. That's what editors need to be using, not the foundation itself. Using the foundation itself is typically either COI work or is the work of students who haven't been trained properly how to find and assess sources. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  trim to articler