Talk:Ioby

Removal of reliably sourced content

SPECIFICO deleted the content on this page with the following explanation, "Delete promotional content". The content was all reliably sourced and fact based. It would be helpful if somebody could review the content. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of the sources in the original diff, but at least two of the sources are of excellent quality (WSJ,NatGeo). I don't understand on what basis almost all of the content was removed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I was not questioning the sources, but rather the promotional tone of the text. That text was cut and paste by Xerographica from the user page of a WP user who is affiliated with ioby. The user apparently did not intend it to be a WP article and wrote it in a promotional style that is appropriate for a user page self-description. I expect that neutral descriptive content will be added to the stub in the future. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a bit promotional, I agree. But it wasn't so bad it needed to be stubbed. Tagged, certainly. Any objections to restoring the original version and excising some of the more obvious puffery?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Much too promotional. I restored a small portion of the material and couched it in a non-promotional tone. The quality WSJ, NatGeo, etc. material can be restored as well, but the prose needs fixing. (Editors should keep in mind that much of this was C&P from another user's page.) As Xerographic was the article creator, he ought to do so. Then he would not be responsible for the soapboxing. The original material is there for restoration in the edit history – a piece-by-piece restoration, properly edited, is the best way to go in order to avoid the puffery. If it is restored wholesale, then who would undertake proper article development? – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to trim it down tonight. Your suggestion is fine. Xerographic might also want to consider pasting and editing into a sandbox.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Best way to edit article

Off-topic discussion

I'm puzzled as to why an editor would think it's appropriate to cut and paste from another editor's talk page. Clearly, if Erin had wished to create the article she could have done so. Then, X, having done the cut and paste, could very well have done the appropriate review himself rather than issuing a call, above, for some other editor to do the work. Just my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Rich...are you guys going to build this article up? If so, then you're more than welcome to thumb your nose at Erin's quality and reliably sourced contributions. If not, then please don't criticize other people's contributions if you're not willing to make better contributions yourselves. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why you took it upon yourself to copy another editor's text, and having done so why you felt no obligation to adapt it to the requirements of an article page. How would you feel if one of the other editors copied some of your user page text to separate article pages? SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion as to how individual editors are behaving, as opposed to edits which may improve this article, is off-topic. I am setting it aside as a sub-heading. Why? LGR does not want to edit it, nor do I. And I don't think SPECIFICO wants to expand on the article, but each of us is free to choose our own poison. Still, LGR has followed through and seems to endorse (I believe) my recommendation that Xerographica improve the article he created. I will add expand on that by pointing to the suggestions in WP:BETTER (and WP:1ST). – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, seriously? The only reason I have user subpages is because you, Rich and Rubin deleted the content from other articles. I'd love it if other editors copied those passages and pasted them into all relevant articles.

I did improve the article I created by adding the excellent and reliably sourced content that Erin created. You and SPECIFICO removed the content that I added. Why? Because it didn't meet your quality standards. But you're not going to make the effort to add content that does meet your quality standards. Why? Because you never have. Look at tax choice. You and SPECIFICO removed plenty of content that did not meet your quality standards...but neither or you ever got around to actually building the article up. Where's one article that you have actually built up? --Xerographica (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Technically, the article, being copyied from a WP:FAKEARTICLE, is a copyright violation. It should be speedily deleted unless subsequent edits removed all copied text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the article was stubbed, and has the barest of material from RS now properly setforth in non-promotional language, do we avoid a deletion? Or is it better to WP:BLOWITUP via deletion and thereby let a new page, with the same title and same references be created? Seems that a deletion would accomplish nothing, so I recommend not deleting and thereby allowing interested editors to improve it.-- – S. Rich (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rich. In the spirit of colloboartion I personally intend to try and improve this article by adding contnt and encourage everyone else that is commenting on this to do so as well. Unfortunately my content addition periods are limited to when I have keyboard access. Tablets are poor content utility devices I'm afraid.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be sufficient to add the {{copied}} tag here, or to create a WP:dummy edit with edit summary something like:

Parts of this article were copied from edits by [[Special:Contributions/Erinbarnes|Erinbarnes]] of [[User:Erinbarnes]]

I don't think the revision IDs are necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is technical knowledge far beyond my scope. Do it, Arthur, if you feel it is the way to go. – S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed Speedy proposal

As the original poster of Ioby is INDEF'd (after much discussion from numerous editors), I think a better route is AfD. (This is the second nomination.) Also, User:Erinbarnes should be notified as the genesis for the article came from him. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A good WP:RS

An editor posted put this at AfD in case anyone wants to add. this in the Christian Science Monitor. An interview plus WP:RS description of organisation. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How can we add some more useful info to this page?

Hi,

I am a freelance writer and occasionally work for ioby. I've noticed that their Wikipedia page, while currently factually accurate, doesn't explain very much about what they do, their growth since their founding, the press they've received, etc. For example, they have helped neighborhood leaders raise over $3.2 million since 2007 (https://www.ioby.org/about), and have been featured in Grist (http://grist.org/article/2009-05-28-interview-ioby/), Nationswell (http://nationswell.com/crowdfunding-neighborhood-improvement/), and Memphis Daily News (https://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2017/feb/1/crowd-funding-platform-ioby-helps-raise-600000-for-community-restoration-projects/), among many others.

What would be the best way to get some more of this relevant info up on ioby's Wikipedia page? Thank you for your help; I am a total Wikipedia newb :)

April Greene — Preceding unsigned comment added by AprilGreene (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)