Talk:Axios (website)/Archive 1

Move page to Axios (website)
Can we move the page to Axios (website) and describe the publication, not the company? That is how it is done for every single other news website on Wikipedia. Vox (website) Rare (website) The Federalist (website) Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Reporters
How about a section of reporters?https://www.axios.com/sp/about/#team

--Wikipietime (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Launched in name only?
The site's name, based on the Greek word for "worthy", officially launched in 2017.

That's a bit weird, is it not? &mdash; MaxEnt 15:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The overview citation from Five Thirty Eight
I find that the citation is no longer appropriate as the overview article discusses how the use of unnamed sources to make predictions is bad but this is the full context on Axios predictions: "Axios and Politico, two publications targeted at political junkies, in particular often float “scoops” predicting that something will happen that never does. An April piece in Axios quoted “aides and advisers” to Trump who suggested that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon could soon be pushed out by Trump, with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy potentially replacing Priebus." The notable part is that 10 days later after publication of the cited article Priebus left the whitehouse and 30 days after cited article Steven Bannon left as well. I think the citation from FiveThirtyEight puts the credibility of Axios on doubt when, in fact, it uses two examples that reenforce its credibility as a news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.48.113 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: website or newspaper
There's an RfC on whether a news website should use Infobox website or Infobox newspaper: Talk:The Times of Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of article
Hi,

I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor and also a paid consultant to Axios. As such, I had the time to go through the more recent sourcing and do a significant update to the article. I'd like to begin to improve it from "Start Class" as the subject of the article has become increasingly important. See, for example,

The updated draft is in my sandbox, here: User:BC1278/sandbox/axios. I've tried my best to abide by the five pillars, especially with NPOV. I've only included well-sourced information I think will be useful to readers of the encyclopedia. As per WP: COI, I'd request that an independent editor carefully go through the suggested updates and decide whether to include them. I am more than happy to do additional work, as directed.

The changes are in bold. I've also done some re-org of the article, separating out financials and investment info from the main "History" section.

The changes are also pasted below, in bold, although I had to remove the section mark up to keep this all in the same section on this Talk page:


 * Added c/e changes on to User:BC1278/sandbox/axios. The below looks mostly fine, with some minor things I have touched up to remove some WP:PROMO tone. I would assume this is one of the main concerns. Many of the points below seem to be fine and fact-based, with minor editorializing. Any revision could also use additional info on impact(s) / scoops / major stories. Vision and mission are likely overstated here presently in proportion content of the overall article. Shaded0 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I'm going to add info on major stories/impacts, as you suggested, based mostly on a BuzzFeed story that just ran on Jan. 25. I'll ping when I've completed it and perhaps you might make the Sandbox updates live, as it is discouraged for COI editors to edit stories directly. BC1278 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

-

Axios (stylized as AXIOS) is an American news and information media company founded in 2016 by Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei, Politico's former Chief White House correspondent Mike Allen, and former Politico Chief Revenue Officer Roy Schwartz. The site's name, based on the term ἄξιος (áxios), "worthy", debuted in 2017. '''The company had raised $30 million, as of November, 2017. '''

History

The company launched with a mission statement that stated, "Media is broken—and too often a scam." Journalists publish too much “crap,” without enough expertise, and no sustainable business model. '''The founders said they want to present the news without fluff or clickbait. '''

'''They initially targeted corporate executives and other professionals with a mix of news about business, politics, technology, healthcare and media. They later added energy and science as verticals. VandeHei said Axios would focus on the “collision between tech and areas such as bureaucracy, health care, energy, and the transportation infrastructure." '''

'''At launch, Nicholas Johnston, a former managing editor at Bloomberg LP was named editor in chief. '''

'''VandeHei said Axios news articles are characterized by "smart brevity", intended to be brief, specialized, high-quality and easily shareable. Typical articles feature bullet points for easy scanning and are shorter than 300 words. '''

'''The content is designed to live on digital platforms, such as Facebook and Snapchat, as well as its own website. Reporters appear on NBC News and MSNBC through a deal with NBC. Content is also distributed via newsletters covering politics, technology, healthcare and other subjects. Among the newsletters is a daily report by Mike Allen, who formerly wrote the Playbook newsletter for Politico. '''

'''In January, 2017, the company hired as an executive vice president Evan Ryan, the assistant secretary of state for Educational and Cultural Affairs and a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden. '''

'''In March 2017, the company said it had 60 employees with 40 working in editorial. '''

'''Axios.com has six million visitors in September 2017, according to comScore. '''

'''As of November, 2017, Axios said it had 200,000 subscribers to 11 newsletters, with an average open rate of 52%. That same month, Axios said it would use a new $20 million investment to expand data analysis, product development, fund audience growth an increase staff to 150, up from 89. '''

Business Model

Axios has said it will not use banner ads, pop-ups and clickbait headlines, using native advertising instead. Axios' initial native advertisers were JP Morgan & Chase Co., PhRma, Boeing, BP, Bank of America, Koch Industries, S&P Global, United Health Group, Walmart, PepsiCo and Cooley LLP.

'''The company earned more than $10 million in revenue in its first seven months, primarily with native advertising that appears in between stories. The company has projected half its revenue to come through subscriptions. '''

Financials

In the summer of 2016, Axios secured $10 million in a round of financing led by Lerer Hippeau Ventures. Backers include media-partner NBC News; Emerson Collective, the investment vehicle of Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs; Greycroft Partners; and David and Katherine Bradley, owners of Atlantic Media.

'''In November 2017, Axios said that it had raised an additional $20 million. WndrCo, a media-and-technology firm founded by DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, is a new investor in the round. '''

References

Further reading



External links



New section
Hi,

There was a request by an editor, above in Talk, to have a section on the most important stories Axios has published so far. Luckily, there was a recent feature story about Axios that reviewed just that. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor but a paid consultant to Axios, so I'll not make direct edits to the article as per WP: COI. But I wrote the section if someone else would like to add it:

Stories

An interview with Donald Trump, days before his inauguration in January 2017, brought Axios mainstream media attention when it launched.

In May 2017, Axios was the first to report that Trump had decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Axios was also the first to report that the skepticism over a detailed dinner conversation described between Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes in the Michael Wolf book Fire and Fury was probably ill founded because the dinner took place at Wolff's house.

Jonathan Swann wast he first to report that President Trump was beginning his official work days at 11 a.m., following three hours of “Executive Time” — “watching TV, making phone calls, and tweeting."

Axios broke the story that FBI Director Christopher Wray threatened to resign after pressure from Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire his deputy. It was also the news outlet through which Steve Bannon chose to issue a statement of "regret" for some of his comments in the Fire and Fury book.

BC1278 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Whitewashing ?
See Ashley Feinberg, [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages. And it almost always works], HuffPost (03/14/2019) --Toyotsu (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor with a disclosed WP: COI as a paid consultant to Axios.

In Lead:


 * Replace:

Axios articles are known for their brevity, clear structure, and frequent use of bullet points.

with:


 * Axios articles articles are typically brief (less than 300 words) and use bullet points.

Notifying who left note requesting additional citation here. BC1278 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. The suggested replacement doesn't support the claim, therefore I don't think this edit should be accepted.
 * Suggested language - "Axios articles are typically brief (less than 300 words) and use bullet points."
 * Source language - "Many articles feature bullet points so that they are easier to scan. A post is typically shorter than 300 words." --Btcgeek (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . How is this instead:
 * Many articles use bullet points "so they are easier to scan" and they are typically brief (less than 300 words.) BC1278 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this change seems reasonable to me, and supported by the source. However, please note that there's a preceding claim "Furthermore, it disavowed banner ads, pop-ups, and clickbait titles, in favor of native advertising" which definitely needs a proper citation. Would you have any references handy?
 * Hi It just so happens, I found a fairly recent source that's all about this. I'd change the wording of the current sentence to this:


 * "Axios relies on short-form native advertising to generate revenue and had disavowed the use of banner ads. BC1278 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, just FYI, I am not the creator of this article or this language. I did propose a substantial redraft here on Talk and it did not contain either of these two subjects or sentences in the lead. More neutrally phrased versions were proposed further down in the article. Talk:Axios_(website). Obviously, not all my proposals were adopted by reviewing editors. BC1278 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source . It seems to imply Axios generates revenue both via short-form native advertising and also via sponsored newsletters. I don't think the statement needs to talk about banner ads at all, since it isn't unique to Axios (e.g. Buzzfeed originally). As a more neutral tone, I would suggest the below --Btcgeek (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Axios generates revenue through short-form native advertising and sponsored newsletters.

That seems fair to me. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material
Hi,

I had a disclosed WP: COI for this article, but I am not being paid for this work, which is about me. A similar identical discussion about use of this HuffPo article was already decide in favor of removing this language: Talk:Caryn_Marooney This article is wholly unreliable, as determined by an in-depth review of Wikipedia Admins - and even the language describing the Huffpo article here is inaccurate.

I think this article falls into the BLP policy for "contentious material" because the HuffPo source refers to me by name, not to a "public relations firm," the language invented by this editor. So anyone checking the citation will see highly contentious and disputed material about me personally.

Remove:

"In March 2019, The Huffington Post reported that Axios had retained a public relations firm to make Wikipedia pages for the website and its staff "as flattering as possible."

Why?

1. Inaccurate and WP: Coatrack. This HuffPo article does not allege that I directly edit Axios or Wikipedia pages, which is the false impression this language gives, rather than disclosed COI proposals independently reviewed on Talk. The article makes clear that I made COI disclosed proposals, submitted for independent review on article Talk page - and this is all allowed by Wikipedia COI policy. The article has a denial of anything improper being done by me -- "everything is above board" and links to Wikipedia discussions with full rebuttal by me of specific allegations. If the articles allegation'ss were accurately represented, it would require an extended Wikipedia policy description, which would be Coatrack to this article. The HuffPo article also does not refer to Axios "executives" or a "public relations firm" (it refers to me by name.)

2. Administrative Noticeboard has already reviewed this HuffPo article in-depth and found it to be unreliable: "The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all... This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage..." This is from the admin User: Swarm. Swarm explained this thoughts about the removal of a similar passage derived from the HuffPo in the Wikipedia article about Caryn Marooney: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong. It has been suggested that the user should probably be more concise, but we haven't seen anything to support the notion that they're relentlessly argumentative or engage in "bludgeoning" behavior. This is an unprecedented scenario in which a supposedly-reliable source is making claims about Wikipedia that we can actually weigh and judge from an administrative perspective, not just from a content perspective. And, when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario." Also at Talk:Caryn_Marooney.' BC1278 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 1-APR-2019
Regards, Spintendo  09:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The claim has been altered to a direct quote from the HuffPo article. The overall breadth of the Axios Wikipedia page appears to be comfortable with other items which mention individuals (and their names) being either hired by the company or investing in it. This item, as it mentions another hiring (but not their names) appears at the outset to be no different.
 * 2) Nevertheless, as the claim describes routine actions taken at Wikipedia which did not violate any policies or guidelines, an Undue weight inline template was appended to the claim in order to provide a doorway for discussion. The template links back to the talk page where feedback may be provided, and the entire claim may be removed if other editors feel that its removal is appropriate.
 * 3) The Controversy subheading was omitted per WP:CSECTION.


 * Thanks for carefully considering this language, and suggesting an Undue discussion on Talk (more appropriate before posting, though?). That said, I think 1) the language is still misleading even with the milder language you chose; 2) once you make it accurate it becomes WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTNEWS; 3) the HuffPo article itself is an unreliable source, and should not be used on Wikipedia; and 4) it implicitly violates WP: COI and WP: Paid Editing:
 * 1) Even just reading the milder language you chose from the article, the typical reader will take it to mean a) some sort of "whitewashing", most probably that the actual article for Wikipedia was altered by Axios and I in stealth and b) Axios and I have done something that justifies a significant event worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. (Otherwise, WP:NOTNEWS) No one from the general public knows that following Wikipedia "paid editing" policy means disclosed posting for review on the Talk page. The only way to correct the current language for accuracy and balance would be to a) include, as the HuffPo article does, that as per WP policy, paid editing was in the form of a "suggestion" to the discussion page of this article, later reviewed and approved by a volunteer editor and b) that HuffPo itself says that if a paid editor discloses they have a conflict of interest, that in and of itself is not a WP policy violation. And to rebut the "criticism" for balance, you'd also have to add the statements attributed to me in the article that a) "everything was aboveboard" b) there was "no story here" (implicitly, because this is a routine event and all policies were followed.)
 * 2) The language chosen bypasses the main accusation against Axios and me (right in the headline) -- that we "whitewashed" the Axios Wikipedia page, along with several other articles. By not quoting or summarizing the actual severity of the accusation head on, this implicitly acknowledges that a) the "whitewashing" allegation is either deceptive and therefore the source fails under WP:RS for inclusion in Wikipedia (otherwise, it should be included, since it's the more serious allegation); or, that if you included the "whitewashing" accusation, then at least the lengthier attempted explanation of Wikipedia policy in HuffPo would necessarily also need to be included. But that longer explanation would would move the whole passage into WP: Undue and WP:NOTNEWS.
 * 3) Once you do what's necessary for accuracy and balance, then it would also be obvious WP:NOTNEWS (equivalent to a routine announcement, since COI and paid editing Wikipedie is routine/standard practice.) See from the same AN discussion: "Well, I guess CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies", from User: Someguy1221
 * 4) As per the quote above from User: Swarm on the Admin noticeboard about the HuffPo article (and a related statement by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it should be considered to also fail WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS.
 * 5) The official policy of Wikipedia is to require editors with a COI to disclose and to post to Talk or AfC. Inserting discussion of WP: COI and WP: PAID into an article about a subject that has abided by these policies undermines and implicitly violates these policies. There is already an established method for disclosure on Talk -- if any journalist can publish a list of all the articles with declared COI within the rules, and that list can be used to justify placing a disclosure of COI in the main article, then this is a work-around that will cause the collapse of WP: COI and WP: PAID. No one will continue to declare COI or paid if any such declaration is by itself going to subject to them to criticism in the Wikipedia articles about them, under Wikipedia's control (especially when AN review of the article says there's no policy violation!) BC1278 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The editing across at least four articles at this point look too much like coordinated attacks.
 * I'm unclear why it belongs in this article. I agree with the NOTNEWS and UNDUE concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so much "deliberate attacks," IMO, as "people striving for transparency to maintain Wikipedia's credibility" (with a note that I haven't done any of the edits, just observed them) in the face of BC12378's clear and ongoing attempts, with the above wall of text & wikilawyering described in the article, the disposition and reliability of which he continues to state in a biased reading of the discussions on it, serving as a great example of why many of us are concerned about him deliberately biasing articles in favor of his clients, rather than the facts... something a lot of people would like to see noted, not buried on a talk page. Otherwise we play right in to the hands of those who say "Wikipedia can't be considered reliable and this will never change." JamesG5 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "deliberate attacks", but the responses, including that one, are far too focused on editors rather than content policy. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "coordinated attacks." JamesG5 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read near total AN discrediting of the HuffPo article before deciding whether it's a RS or that I acted contrary to Wikipedia policy. Eight different admins looked at the HuffPo article's allegations. BC1278 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved admin summarized the findings of the ANI discussion and investigation, as part of a closure discussion for the ANI thread. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. "...regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." BC1278 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please link to where the discussion was closed and it was determined that the HuffPo piece was "unreliable" because it contained opinions (which is ridiculous and flatly wrong per WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of HuffPost article on paid editing at the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion of the reliability of Ashley Feinberg's HuffPost article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   17:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Closure of this new discussion of the article has been requested on RSN, with any general discussion of the HuffPo article to continue at AN, and specific discussion of content of this article about Axios to be finalized here. BC1278 (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the discussion appears to be proceeding anyway on this new forum. BC1278 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The RSN discussion was archived without a close. An independent admin (Nosebagbear) who reviewed the RSN discussion said: "as an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case. As only those who think that it was legitimate to look at actually cast !votes, it's an inherently disrupted discussion." Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsBC1278 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit
I'd like to request again that the following be deleted - "In March 2019, The Huffington Post's Ashley Feinberg reported that Axios had hired a "paid Wikipedia editor" beginning in February 2018 to "beef up its Wikipedia page (mostly with benign — if largely flattering — stats about Axios’ accomplishments)" - given new Wikipedia noticeboard findings since the previous Request Edit determination. Namely, an independent admin, User:SoWhy, summed up the consensus of the  Admin Noticeboard  as "a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." [| Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure]

And, in another discussion of the article on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, User: Collect summed up the opinion of several editors by stating: "Where an article is clearly one filled with the opinions of its author, it ceases to be a reliable source for "claims of fact", which is the case at hand." At best, the HuffPo article can be cited for the statements of opinion of the author. Reliable Source Noticeboard. There was no closure of RSN discussion because an independent admin found that consensus of editors agreed he matter should not be re-opened at RSN given the existing discussion at AN.

Therefore, the source not meeting WP:RS and it being WP:NOTNEWS has newfound weight. That said, I could instead open an RfC if that route is preferred. BC1278 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS applies to routine reporting (think: weather forecasts, traffic reports), not in-depth articles. Nor is this an opinion piece. It contains factual reporting along with commentary and analysis, which is typical for news reporting. Forgive me, but I don't think these shallow arguments warrant slapping the "unreliable" label on this source, particularly when those arguments are being most forcefully made from someone with an inherent conflict of interest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hiring a "PR firm" to request routine Wikipedia updates, strictly following Wikipedia policy, isn't routine? It happens tens of thousands of times a year. If the events had been reported accurately, they would be non-news. As the admin User: Someguy1221 put it: "I guess CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies." Admin Noticeboard. Admin User:Swarm concluded: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong."|dif." What was the point of all these admins on AN actually investigating and rejecting the article's claims that the actions were anything other than routine (de facto, not news!), if it is still condoned as a source claiming otherwise on Wikipedia? BC1278 (talk)
 * Routine is if the article had stated that an individual was paid to make a single correction to the article, for example, if an editor's edit request was made to change the spelling of Axyos with a Y to the correct letter I. That single edit request would be a routine fact not worthy of mention. This claim speaks to the entirety of the edit requesting being done, which collectively seems less-routine. Spintendo  18:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * None of this matters because is arguing for applying a definition of "routine" in WP:NOTNEWS that is completely incorrect. The distinction is not between "routine" or unprecedented. We are discussing reporting on a specific instance of paid editors (see BC1278's disclosure above that he is one of said paid editors) making changes to a company's WP page. WP:NOTNEWS cites as examples sports events, celebrity gossip, and other announcements. By no stretch of the imagination does an investigative piece qualify as "routine." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, whether or not BC1278 believes the underlying activity (a PR firm editing WP on behalf of an article subject) is "routine" is irrelevant to the definition of routine in WP:NOTNEWS which refers to the nature of coverage. This particular contention is headed fast towards a dead end. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, more reliable secondary coverage on this topic. Go figure! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the second source repeats the claims of the first source, which AN has already held are not remotely credible. You have to give some deference to the AN findings here. Do you not believe the findings? If you believe the findings, how can you use the source? BC1278 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) My interpretation of NOTNEWS is in the overall context of NOT and POV, so I don't think it worth time debating definitions of "routine" but rather value and appropriateness for use in encyclopedia articles. I don't think the HuffPost article comes close to the threshold for the reasons that have been repeated here and in the various discussions.
 * The Wired article is much better, and may deserve some discussion. I'm not sure how much weight it gives to anything relevant to this article though. I'd hope it's being used in articles about Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no such finding. You are, remarkably, challenging the reliability of a source for making factual assertions you concede to be true. This is patent nonsense. The second portion of your argument about this source, that because it contains commentary, it qualifies as an opinion piece (which would make it a WP:PRIMARY) is also wrong because news articles and investigative pieces may (and do) indeed contain such material and are considered secondary per WP:NEWSORG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No legitimate reasons have been presented to characterize the HuffPo piece as unreliable. And you are entitled to interpret policy, but not invent new definitions not covered in the policy pages. WP:NOTNEWS simply does not cover investigative pieces like the one from HP. The relevant policy is WP:DUE, part of WP:NPOV, which requires that we include this material on the subject based on the fact that it is both pertinent and has been published in multiple reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I believe it is inappropriate per WP:COI for BC1278 to even be participating in any discussion on this content. Their COI is two-fold: first, BC1278 has (rightfully) disclosed that they are being paid to edit this page; second, the content under discussion is about their own paid edits (this is noted by BC1278 themself on this talk page). It is implausible that BC1278, with or without full disclosure, could offer impartial input on this matter because their personal and professional interests are directly implicated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A summary of the AN findings by SoWhy, an uninvolved admin, are in the first paragraph of this section, with the link. The assertions of the direct quote used in this Axios article are untrue. I couldn't "beef up" the page because I never made any direct edits. I only made proposals on Talk. And my proposals were neutral, not "flattering (i.e. promotional), or at least that's what the independent reviewing editor found, or they wouldn't have accepted and published them. Finally, in lieu of direct editing, the subjects of articles, or their representatives, (I'm both, as noted) are asked to participate on Talk by WP: COI. BC1278 (talk)
 * You are misrepresenting their summary, which frankly has zero impact on the source's reliability. That you disagree with the reporter's points does not make the piece unreliable, nor is this the appropriate forum for you to argue your case and dispute their description. And I am not saying you are required to abstain from this talk page, but I am suggesting that you harbor too deep a connection the topic (your edits to this page and financial incentive to do so, which you have disclosed) to remain neutral in your input, even if limited to the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920: You missed my points entirely, which is a problem. The reliability of the source is not good, but that's been established so it wasn't what I focused upon.
 * My concerns are that the discussions of minutiae of how to interpret "routine" disregard the context of NOT and POV, and so disregard those policies.
 * I'll again suggest focusing on the Wired article. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can say that it’s “been established” that the world is flat, too, but that doesn’t make it true. The HuffPo piece has in no way shape or form been determined unreliable, there has been no consensus to that effect, and you haven’t offered a single reason to support that assertion. And there’s no legitimate reading of WP:NOTNEWS that would justify purging a the HuffPo piece for the reasons I’ve explained, so you can just drop that argument. For the record, both the HuffPo and Wires pieces are cited. Furthermore, POV applies to editors, not journalists, who are allowed to have a point of view. NPOV means including what has been published in reliable sources without regard to what is favorable to the subject and what is not, and this topic has received attention from multiple reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See the corrections at the bottom of | the Wired column. After an investigation, they retracted statements that said there were any Wikipedia policy violations, such as canvassing or puffing up articles, on my part. In fact, Wired bent over backwards to say I followed Wikipedia policy and provided useful proposals on Talk. It quotes Swarm in the AN investigation: “Most of the supposed ‘whitewashing’ seems to be mundane matters that don’t harm articles at all, if not actual improvements.” The Wired correction and its explanation that I follow policy closely and provide helpful suggested edits, is 180 degrees opposite of what the HuffPo article claims. It's a repudiation of the HuffPo's wild allegations, even though that's not the point of the column. What's left on Wired is a story about Wikipedia policy in general (the ethics of those with money paying for expert help), not about allegations of improper behavior by me or more importantly, the company this article is about, Axios. BC1278 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about you, it's about the article content and the subject. From my reading, neither the HuffPost nor Wired piece alleged any misconduct as far as "violating Wikipedia policy," (in fact, the HuffPost piece was extraordinarily well researched) but it did express opinions about the propriety of paid Wikipedia PR editing, which a secondary source is perfectly entitled to do. That's the kind of critical commentary and analysis that can and should be relied when drafting articles - not merely puff pieces. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , : User:Wikieditor19920 has added new and inflammatory text to a passage that is already actively under discussion on Talk in this section - "Of the practice, Feinberg wrote, "And in just the past few years, companies including Axios, NBC, Nextdoor and Facebook’s PR firm have all paid him to manipulate public perception using a tool most people would never think to check." Aside from skirting Talk,  this content repeats a libelous accusation against about me (I'm the 'him.') that has specifically been rejected by every admin in the related AN discussion (at least eight, according to User: Swarm). This new BLP content is highly contentious on multiple fronts. The accusations are the subject of an upcoming libel claim against HuffPo. An uninvolved admin reviewed the AN discussion and concluded consensus was Feinberg knew nothing about Wikipedia and I violated no policies. "Manipulat[ing] public perception" on Wikipedia suggested severe wrongdoing, such as canvassing, directly editing articles, or adding promotional material. Wired magazine had to officially correct a column that repeated claims from HuffPo that I canvased or added puffery because they found the claims to be untrue when they actually checked the allegation themselves. All citations and links above. By bringing in attacks against me personally, plus NBC, Nextdoor and Facebook, User:Wikieditor19920 is also far, far off base from relevant, DUE content for what is supposed to be an article about Axios.  This content is WP: Coatracking in an attempt to publicize the discredited HuffPo claims. BC1278 (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, are you making legal threats? That would certainly be a violation of policy, so I'd encourage you not to make any insinuations about what is or is not "the subject of an upcoming libel suit. The words "manipulate public opinion" has nothing to do with violating Wikipedia policy; it constitutes commentary by the author of the piece, and that you disagree with her criticism of your edits does not make those criticisms libelous; I know from a PR perspective, criticism is undesirable, but as you well know, it's permitted and in fact required under WP:NPOV. And the HuffPo piece has absolutely not been "discredited," to the contrary, its assertions have been proven and picked up by other reliable outlets (see: Wired) so you are simply repeating a falsehood, which is particularly egregious for someone with a disclosed COI. There was no consensus anywhere against using the HuffPo piece, and you continuing to, falsely, insist otherwise is disruptive. There is nothing about the material that's been added to the page that's inflammatory or in violation of policy, and I plan to also take a look at what can be cited from the Wired piece. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no legal threat against Wikipedia, or any of its editors, so that policy does not apply. Pointing out that the source itself may contain actionable libel, specifically about me, is not what this policy refers to: "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." WP: Legal It does speak to the highly contentious nature of the content, which disqualifies it from use in BLP. A BLP violation need not be in a bio of the person; it just needs to concern the person. WP: BLP.BC1278 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Upcoming libel claim"
Re The accusations are the subject of an upcoming libel claim against HuffPo. -- who is this upcoming claim from? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From me. I can't discuss further details publicly. BC1278 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why bring it up? If the details cannot be shared publicly, it does not make sense to disclose the intention. Because otherwise it does sound like a legal threat, or at least an implied one, as in (I paraphrase): The source you guys are using is libellous, and I plan to bring a legal suit against the publication where it appeared. So watch out -- that's how it reads. It sounds real off. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ K.E. This might not be an explicit legal threat, but it sounds like an indirect one. Any discussion over potential libel claims are best left off WP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrongdoing on the part of editors here that may get them or Wikipedia involved may need to be addressed. Should legal be contacted? Is other review needed? --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above comment by Ronz almost certainly is a legal threat., I am giving you the chance to retract this now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's anything that needs clarifying, do let me know. I've struck out the bit about behavior, just to be clear this is no threat to anyone. All I'm saying is that we might want to get Wikipedia legal involved. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The appropriate forum for concerns about potential BLP violations is WP:BLPN. The reliability of a source may be discussed at WP:RSN. A reminder that any suggestions about legal action or "outside review" could be perceived as a legal threat, which are strictly prohibited per WP:NLT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you clearly don't understand what I mean, while you are trying to use this to attack me and stifle consensus building.
 * I've only seen Wikipedia legal get involved a few times, and can't recall many details. I'm not sure where to start, so this may take some time. I'll try to get back to this quickly as my schedule permits. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For your information, here is the relevant policy: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." WP: NLT The HuffPo source and the material is libelous. The WP:AN discussion and consensus finding by an uninvolved Admin on the WP: ANC makes it crystal clear that this material is false sensationalism. BC1278 (talk)
 * I apologize for putting anyone on edge or feeling threatened. My concern was that these discussions seemed to be getting to a point where contacting Wikipedia legal might be appropriate. Responses to my request for help, say that no action is needed. Again, my apologies for not handling this better. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

 * I also have concerns about continued advocacy aimed at expunging the material that puts the contributions of the editor in question in a critical light. I would also suggest that WP:PAIDTALK applies here, and stepping back from the discussion may be in order. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is paying me for this Talk discussion, most especially the defense of myself. Especially in light of User: Wikieditor19920 just inserting a direct personal attack on me, participating in this discussion is very well founded. Subjects of unfounded BLP attacks are actively encouraged to delete the material directly, discuss it on Talk or report it to BLPN. BC1278 (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A reliable, secondary source criticized your work for the subject of this page, based on information that you have admitted (by disclosing your paid editing on this page and to the author of the piece) to be factually correct. Sorry, that's not a BLP violation. If you don't like being criticized, you should avoid being mentioned in secondary sources, but it's not WP's job to purge those criticisms when they become relevant to the subject of an article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also: You just said you are not being paid for participating in this talk discussion. However, you have disclosed that you are being paid to contribute to this page, which you are presumably doing via your proposals here on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I find BC1278's "No one is paying me for this Talk discussion" statement to be extremely dubious, as Sussman's website states: "We Bullet-Proof Your Wikipedia Presence". Under a "Monitoring" heading, Sussman's website claims: "We’ll set up 24×7 automated alerts for any changes and keep you up to date." While BC1278 might not be billing Axios for these specific edits, Axios had previously paid BC1278 for reputation management services, and edit requests for removing reliably sourced information related to Axios's paid editing certainly fall under the scope of reputation management. Follow-up services still count as paid editing, regardless of how it's reflected on BC1278's financial statements. —  Newslinger  talk   20:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be crystal clear: 1) HuffPo and its use here attacks me personally and as the subject of these malicious attacks, I am defending myself in a personal capacity; 2) Axios paid me in the past, as I have disclosed, when I made proposed edits prior to the HuffPo issue. They have not paid me anything since, including for monitoring this article, nor did what they pay me in the past include any promise of monitoring this article. All my work on Talk regarding the HuffPo article is unpaid. BC1278 (talk)

Wired article
Since my comments to focus on the Wired article have been ignored so far...

My impression of the Wired article is that it's vastly superior to the HuffPost ref. If any mention at all is due in this article, we should be using the perspectives from Wired first. Any differences in perspective between the two should be discussed. I'm not sure how an RfC would help until we do. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Although the COI editor appreciates that Wired story better, my guess is that they will still find using that source to validate any (friendlier perspective) claims regarding COI editing practices as something which shouldn't be included in the Axios article at all. The COI editor is welcome to correct me on this. Spintendo  19:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the Wired article is not "superior" to the HuffPost article, as the former provides fewer details on the actual events. Both articles also provide commentary on the situation, and it would be in BC1278's financial interest to prioritize the Wired article over the HuffPost article, since the latter depicts Sussman's business less favorably. Both articles agree that:


 * Perhaps this could be a starting point. —  Newslinger  talk   20:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As much as I object to this sort of paid editing, and was the one to bring this case to AN, I still think any comments about paid editing should be moved out of article space. We have an appropriate tag for this, the article should remain tagged, and appropriate notices pasted high on Talk. That's all.
 * It needs to be kept in mind that the "controversial fact" itself is (1) actually not about the company but about its Wikipedia article; this is essentially a meta-analysis of Wiki-editing; (2) non-notable - a business paying a PR company to improve its public image is neither newsworthy nor controversial, we don't usually stick PR subcontracting trivia in articles; the "controversy" was related to inner workings of this project rather than the business in question. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea what the above comment's point is. We have a negative story about an organization that's been covered by several reliable sources and happens to involve WP. The subject of those critical pieces is on this talk page engaging in WP:WIKILAWYERING to exclude the material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ronz, your comments haven't been "ignored." You have made an assertion (the HuffPost piece is unreliable) without any evidence supporting it. And don't unilaterally remove the content again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, you repeatedly misrepresent me. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely, Kashmiri doesnt mean to suggest that a business moving into a newly built headquarters would not merit a mention in an article simply because that would be business subcontractor trivia involving the business and its architects. I can point to countless examples where minor business arraingements have been mentioned in articles, where being "newsworthy nor controversial" are not taken to be strict content requirements. FWIW I would prefer Newslinger's starting point. Spintendo  00:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri, the undisclosed COI tag is not appropriate for this article. This is because the COI editor Ed Sussman has disclosed his COI in the talk pages and isn't in violation of WP rules. I don't think the material should be completely removed from the article - it seems important enough information and is well sourced. Newslinger suggested a good starting point to include the material that I am in favor of, which synthesizes the main points from both the articles. --Btcgeek (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The COI tag doesn't say "undisclosed". My argument is the material is utterly unimportant - Axios is a fairly small company, bordering notability, and Sussman's PR firm is absolutely non-notable. Neither their service agreement is worthy of mentioning in an encyclopaedia nor the fact of Sussman's editing is any controversy for the reader (even if it might be for other WP editors). A newspaper or two screaming "Controversy" is not enough to include that material in an encyclopaedia.
 * Let's get real: a small company somwehere in the US hires an even smaller business to do some job in PR. Do you really think this should go into an encylopaedia, even if some journalist decided to write an article about it? — kashmīrī  TALK  07:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Both sources are good; we should use them in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In March and April 2019, HuffPost and Wired reported... That at least doesn't give preference to the HuffPost article, so it's an improvement. Thank you, Newslinger. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't pick and choose favorites on sources. The HuffPost and Wired articles are both reliable, and unless you have substantive reasons to believe otherwise to share, then you need to stop this line of argument. Disputing the reliability of a source without a basis is plainly disruptive. Also, please disclose whether you have a COI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider your lines of discussion and approach, else you may face a block a ban. The repeated misrepresentations, demands, focus on others, and worse all need to stop. Please tread far more carefully. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? You are attempting to implement the proposal of a paid COI editor with an incredibly flimsy basis. The rough consensus on this talk is to include the content and that the HuffPost piece is reliable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no in-depth discussion here of the specific allegations of the HuffPo piece and certainly no consensus that it is reliable. Nor is this the place to repeat an in-depth reliability discussion that played out over several weeks on AN. If you'd like to see a detailed analysis of the article's deceptions and falsehoods, see the discussion at Admin Noticeboard . Swarm goes into the most detail. According to Swarm's count, eight admins concurred that the article was "exaggerated sensationalism." |dif. Again, on AN Close, an uninvolved admin summarized consensus about the reliability on AN as follows: "a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."  [| Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure] BC1278 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, please focus on your behavior rather than trying to justify it by focusing on others'. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that Newslinger's proposed text provides a solid introduction to the other material, so I've added it to the article. Thank you, NS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that both Feinberg and Wired say, as per Axios, that I publicly disclosed my conflict of interest, I made my proposals on the discussion pages, and they were reviewed and approved by volunteer editors, and all this is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Why is this all omitted from the passage, as it now stands? This passage is written so it's virtually indistinguishable from past Wikipedia scandals involving secret, direct editing of WP articles. Even the name of the sub-section, "Paid Wikipedia Editing", is grossly misleading to anyone who isn't an experienced Wikipedia editor. "Paid Editing" is a Wikipedia term of art. It's non-intuitive to an average person that someone who just proposes updates on a discussion page for an independent volunteer to review is called an "editor" by Wikipedia. Even an experienced Wikipedia editor reading this sub-head and passage (together with the "Whitewashed Pages" title of the HuffPo also visible in the article) will assume it means "Undisclosed Paid Wikipedia Editing" instead of "Disclosed Paid Editing." An accurate sub-head might say: "Axios Rep Publicly Proposed Wikipedia Updates" but that doesn't sound enough like a scandal, I guess. The entire subject shouldn't be on the Axios article and it's especially ridiculous that this merits an entire sub-section here. BC1278 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one here is accusing you of misconduct. By all accounts, you appear to have done the right thing by disclosing your COI. However, you're mistakenly conflating an article's content with a formal accusation of a violation. My reading of the article was that it was critical of the practice of paid-Wikipedia-editing-as-reputation-management generally and specifically called attention to your work for Axios. As you are of course aware, WP articles are intended for the public, not WP editors. The ethical and technical distinctions between disclosed and undisclosed paid editing would be lost on most members of the general public, and while I understand your desire to defend yourself, there is little reason to introduce Wiki nomenclature into the article if they are not emphasized by the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the article page as it currently stands makes no mention of you by name or reference, it only alludes to your work. If we included the bit in the article about how you disclosed your COI and did the right thing by WP standards, we would have to. Is that what you really want? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one here is accusing you of misconduct Then why bring the coi up at every opportunity, and use it as a justification for stifling consensus building?
 * Again, tread carefully. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten me or anyone else on this page. Last warning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My goal is not to bang BC1278 over the head with the COI, but it is the elephant in the room, particularly because the piece under discussion addresses their edits (and this editor has previously accepted payments to edit this page on behalf of the company). It's important that this discussion not veer off-course into a defense their on-wiki conduct, which no one here has formally raised an issue with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My goal is not to bang BC1278 over the head with the COI Yet that's what you are doing. Please stop disrupting this article talk page with such comments and rationalizations. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I think none of this should be in the Wikipedia article because the HuffPo article is libelous. Even using a minor fact from this HuffPo piece mandates the including the verbatim headline in references -- and the headline is one of the most libelous allegations against me in HuffPo. That said, if you're going to fairly represent HuffPo and Wired (even during the duration of the RfC), you do, in fact have to say that the articles clearly say that in accordance with Wikipedia policy, my proposed corrections and updates on behalf of my clients disclosed that I had a conflict of interest, that I made my proposals through the discussion pages, and independent editors reviewed the proposals and decided to publish just some of them. Yes, even in the very short term, it's absolutely critical that this information be included - Axios and I should not be made out to be secretly directly editing pages in violation of Wikipedia policy. The HuffPo article nonetheless make many libelous claims (especially the headline) that allege I violated Wikipedia policy in all sorts of ways. There have probably been 7 or 8 admins at this point who concur that the HuffPo author got all that stuff wrong in order to create a sensationalized story. COIN investigated and no one raised any charge of wrongdoing. I haven't seen an admin who has said the opposite. All these admins agreeing that the HuffPo piece's allegations of wrongdoing against me are grossly inaccurate constitutes a very strong factual basis for a cause of action for libel against HuffPo.  Masking my identity on Wikipedia by calling me a "firm" doesn't help matters much because the HuffPo article is entirely about me, using my real name. BC1278 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are blatantly misrepresenting the source. You assertion that the article "accused you of violations" is provably false:


 * Your claims about "libel" are based on a false premise and appear solely intended to discredit the source for reporting factually correct content, that you have engaged in paid editing on behalf of Axios. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to go through the specific claims, one at a time, to appreciate the level of deception of this article. She starts by saying "he has to play by the rules" then goes on to say that in fact, I don't. That's the "whitewash" she alleges. A lot of this has been gone over AN or COIN already. Check out Swarm's comments at AN, for example, or my explanation. I'm not going to do it again here at length. But I'm saying it's libelous because it's libelous. So for example, the first word of the heaadline is "Facebook" -- a statement that I "whitewashed" Facebook's Wikipedia pages. Sure to get clicks! And what is the one and only requested article edit she mentions when you actually look at the underling link, not the headline or her vague description that I tweaked am article for them? It's that I requested the correction of a false statement that Sheryl Sandberg had been indicted for incitement of hatred in Germany. See Sandberg Talk. Yes, that's right. Asking that a false accusation of an indictment and crime is the specific item that led to the big headline claim that I whitewashed Facebook pages in the HuffPo headline. Or the strange allegation that one of my main techniques is bludgeon editors until they had no choice but to approve my Request Edit proposals. Really? Is that how Request Edit works for anyone? Or that resubmitting an AfC article 14-months later, with 14 new sources, is "lobbying for a year."  Or  to speak to this article, that I "burnished the reputation" of Axios, as you've put it, which is promotionalism by any other name. Did I bludgeon or brainwash the volunteer editors in the Talk discussions above into approving my Axios proposals (they only approved some of them, in fact)? No? Then how exactly did I "whitewash" this Axios article? Or that a straightforward "Coatrack" RfC in a BLP about an executive, that passed 6-2, was a "whitewash" of the bio? Even though that same content ended up getting moved to the company article, at my suggestion, where it belonged. I could go on and on.  The article's claims are wild sensationalism, as the admins who have looked at this have said, repeatedly. The author makes very serious, specific claims about my actions are false or deceptive; she does so at least negligently (this is that standard for a private person) or worse (intentionally, in many cases); damaged my reputation, and has caused me monetary harm. These are the elements of libel. I am an attorney in New York. I'm not shooting off my mouth. BC1278 (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you should both take care with engaging each other. Let the RfC run, then we can take it from there if needed.
 * If someone wants to discuss the Wired article, please do. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

POV tag for Paid Wikipedia editing section
In re: "problems (...) are escalating", if these problems are behavioural, please use an appropriate admin noticeboard to draw attention to the matter. Does not seem a valid reason to apply the tag. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry that portions of my edit summary detracted from the content problems being discussed above, and previously pointed out. While we're making some progress, it's almost certainly headed for an RfC. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am removing this tag. There may be other editors with undisclosed COI's participating on this talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't address the content problems. Please take behavioral problems to an appropriate venue. --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I will. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the specific issue you are calling attention to by applying this tag? If you can't or won't articulate it here, the tag will be removed again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries say:
 * grossly undue in general - cherry-picking perspective from extremely questionable source while ignoring perspective of a far better source - BATTLE?
 * grossly undue in general - pov problems with emphasis on one source over other and cherry-picking perspectives without apparent regard to overall pov of source --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Both sources are equally reliable, and editors on this talk page have roughly agreed to that effect. The second source covers the reporting by the first, and both are given equal mention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you don't understand. Please leave it alone. This will go to RfC almost certainly. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RfCs are generally the most effective way to resolve content disputes. Please see below. —  Newslinger  talk   03:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing
Closing as per outstanding request at WP:ANRFC. My reading of the result of the discussion was incorporate option 2 or a variant thereof. There were basically three strains of justification for the various option presented: with (1), the argument was that either Axios editing Wikipedia wasn't notable, or that it's better included on another page, not this one. With (2) and (3) editors argued the information was notable, germane, and otherwise material. Arguments that said the material shouldn't be included based on WP:RS concerns were not weighted highly as additional citations were provided and Huffington Post is generally considered a reliable source (if people want to fight that battle, WP:RSN is the place to be. The press often gets things wrong about Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we can ignore them. Either way, the arguments that option 2 doesn't even touch that issue is relevant; it appropriately covers the press mentions without editorializing or giving them undue weight that a single news event should have on a company page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How should the Axios (website) article describe the website's paid Wikipedia editing incidents? —  Newslinger  talk   03:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Option 1: The article should not mention the paid Wikipedia editing incidents.

Option 2 (from ):

Option 3 (adapted from ):

—  Newslinger  talk   03:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option 2: The proposed sentence is a neutral and straightforward interpretation of the two cited reliable sources, and provides an adequate amount of detail that is due in this article. I would also restructure the article by splitting the "Content" subsection into its own top-level section, and combining the remainder of the article into the top-level "History" section (with no subsections). —  Newslinger  talk   03:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: A company hiring a PR business to do some - guess, guess - PR work is not something that has any value for an encyclopeadia, even if that (very small) PR business subsequently flouts Wikipedia rules in their work. The proper place to mention such editing "controversies" is the Wikipedia article instead. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: I don't think it is particularly notable. I see three or four of these types of interactions every week where it is obvious there has been some kind of paid editing at work. It is fairly common exercise. It has also been reported on before, not on this context, more reporting on firms that do the work, so it is not new in that respect. Everybody knows what's going on. Curiously there isn't a standalone paid-editing article. That is where it should go. Why there isn't one, when it is such a common thing, I dont know. It is a notable subject. I don't think adding that section would add value to the article.  scope_creep Talk  10:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2: I think the information is material. This is a news site that is trying to build its reputation as a place for journalism. This type of paid editing may be common, but a news site to engage in this practice seems material enough to include in the article. I don't believe that it's just another PR attempt. Firstly, given the size and reach of WP, and secondly, going by the entity that's paying for this PR, and thirdly, the kind of PR that is being paid for. I would be very surprised, for example, if NY Times is paying to edit the Wikipedia pages of its journalists and/or it's main page. That's the comparison for notability for me, not just another company paying for WP editing. I think Option 2 best captures the gist and importance of this piece of information without exaggerated importance in the article and without ignoring what seems to me to be material information that should be included in the article. --Btcgeek (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 – HuffPost isn't really an RS. That particular article was shown to have significant inaccuracies. The Wired article is–in a very strange meta/circular way–more about this very conversation (about mentioning the paid editing in the article) than about the underlying paid editing. Doesn't feel right to "name and shame" companies that have been found to have hired paid editors. At least while it's allowed by our policies, and is a normal business PR thing to do. – Levivich 18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Either Option 2 or 3, but INCLUDE either way Whether it's option 2 or 3, this content undoubtedly should be included under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. HuffPost is regularly relied upon as a reliable source, and in this context, the piece was thorough, well-researched, accurate in its assertions (that paid editing was going on), and it offered a chance for all parties involved to provide input, showing all the hallmarks of a highly reliable source. This reporting was later picked up by a second highly regarded source, Wired, in a piece written by a respected journalist. The reliability criterion is met. Second, WP:DUE states that Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The fact that a bunch of Wikipedia editors find paid editing unremarkable is not a remotely defensible justification for exclusion; multiple sources find the matter noteworthy, and it is pertinent to the company's public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: The reporter for the HuffPo article never ran a single one of these specific allegations by me, even though I made myself available, and she told me the story was not about me. She asked me only general questions about my client services. And Wired has already run a correction, deleting a policy violation allegation that it picked up from HuffPo, that I "minimized controversies." BC1278 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't even see that language in the original HuffPost article. I do see that it reported on your work in detail across several different Wiki pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll see no response or rebuttal to any of the specific factual allegations Ms. Feinberg makes, even though she concedes she spoke to me. BC1278 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 or 3, but include in some form per WP:DUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3, but without the last sentence. Something that's indicative of a wider problem shouldn't be used to unduly demonize, in wikipedia, if collaterally, one company that's part of the problem. I can see that it can be advocated that it being a wider problem somehow diminishes the guilt, but as a casual reader, I'd almost certainly read that sentence to mean that AXIOS is "some evil rich and powerful" doing "evil things".That just seems unduly harsh. Option 2 if that sentence can't be removed. but never Option 1, the event was considered notable by notable credible sources, and judged to be questionable practices by the business. That's enough reason to include it in a page about said business. How morally/ethically a business does its business is the very essence of a business, as far as the general public (read casual wikipedia reader) is concerned. Usedtobecool (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, think paid editing subsection should go into a controversies section. I don't understand why everything, the whole body, including it, has been lumped into the history section. Usedtobecool (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Controversy sections, while not outright pov violations, are problematic and indicative of a poor and biased article. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the event was considered notable by notable credible sources, and judged to be questionable practices by the business Perhaps you could document this in the Discussion section, because if the statement is true, it could significantly change the outcome of the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could document Controversy sections being indicative of a poor and biased article, because if the statement is true, a multitude of articles which have sections named exactly that, could be fixed. With apologies though, I am unable, at the moment, to honour your latter suggestion either. I don't care to engage with editors who've passed the experienced editor level "polite and helpful" and reached level "politely patronizing and condescending". I have been around long enough to know that helpful experienced editors are such an overwhelming majority that I can get by without the mercy of the entitled few. Moreover, I was requested to comment: give my vote and my rationale for it. It is up to the election commissioners to decide whether my opinion is valid enough to count my vote. If it's not, just don't count my vote. Hell, strike through my opinion as well (I have seen both happen in other votes in wikipedia). For what it's worth, I don't think I was being misleading, since I didn't wikilink any wikipedia jargon within my arguments. There has already been enough sophisticated-expert-arguing above, and I read all of it, and guess what?-- It got nowhere. So, there's that too. So, I don't see why same kind of lawyering is required in the middle of the survey. Back to the actual discussion: I suggested controversies section off the top of my head, only as a result of a lifetime of wikibinging. That's why I didn't say "Controversies". My principal point was to ask why everything was under "History". Apart from professional historians, not many would argue vehemently that technically, everything is history . Usedtobecool (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:STRUCTURE. I was hoping you knew of more sources we could use. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:STRUCTURE A firm which can hire paid editors has a huge controversies section on its page. I'll just add that to the list of things you can't learn on wikipedia by examples, then, thanks! And, no, you were not. You were reviving the old argument above where a side argues huffpo and wired are RS and the other argues wired maybe kinda but huffpo isn't really tho... ad infinitum. The manner you did it was deliberately passive aggressive in order to maintain deniability and therefore, disingenuous. You could have just said that you didn't think the sources available credible/notable but you didn't. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2: It's relevant to an encyclopedic entry on Axios, but not so much that it merits more than a brief, neutral sentence or two. Anyone interested in the particulars can go and read the sources. Yunshui 雲 水 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3: While this might not be as egregious as other attempts to manipulate Wikipedia, I think the fact that a news website tried to use WP to get a head start on reliability and to make itself seem more dependable should be mentioned. It is up to the reader to decide if this attempts end up having the opposite effect on the website's reputation or not. I know I would like to know something like this about a website that wants readers to trust it. The third option offers the context to the incident and also makes it clear that it wasn't a flagrant manipulation or an attempt to fill the WP article with falsehoods, but rather a low key attempt to bolster up the website's reputation through "mostly with benign—if largely flattering—stats about Axios’ accomplishments". Again, this wasn't the worst transgression in the history of WP, but should be mentioned nonetheless for the sake of properly informing the readers. PraiseVivec (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The HuffPost piece is about me. My analysis is in the Discussion section, below. There's also extensive information in the Request Edit on this topic, above. BC1278 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 1 The HuffPo article gets a bunch of things wrong and this article should not be considered RS. The Wired article gets things right but the information about Axios is attributed back to HuffPo - Cohen seemingly didn't do his own reporting. So even if Option 2 has consensus it should be sourced just to HuffPo and not given a second source. I feel like I have been discussing the details of this over and over again so I apologize that I'm not going to go in super depth. Please see my archived comments at AN or RSN (or even better those of Swarm) on this topic for more depth of why I'm critical of the HuffPo article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the HuffPost's reporting was absolutely correct. If you want to claim the source is unreliable and inaccurate, you should back those claims up with specific support. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion below, providing something other than just assertions. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliability of this specific article was discussed extensively on the Admin Noticeboard . An uninvolved admin, User:SoWhy, summed up the consensus as "a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." [| Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure] The allegations, in Wikipedia terms, of rampant promotionalism, bludegoning and cavassing, by me, are the core of this article and the AN discussion consensus, according to SoWhy, is that these allegations of policy violations are untrue. BC1278 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)BC1278
 * Option 2: This gives the information in a succinct form. The HuffPo article gets a bunch of things wrong but it gets one thing right, and that one right thing is the only item being claimed with Option 2.   Spintendo  01:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Per arguments above and previous discussions. I'll reiterate the NOTNEWS concerns: "PR firm hired to do their job" has no encyclopedic value. As for the additional POV and RS concerns: The HuffPost ref is poor, especially in what context it provides. The Wired article is a superior source, providing a great deal of context, yet options 2 and 3 use it as an afterthought, rather than the guide for a neutral presentation. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Option 4 that I have proposed in the discussion below in light of the extra sources I found and (maybe too) boldly added. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC) This story has also been picked up here in the magazine Ad Age so I think that there is no reason not to mention it especially in light of the North Face problems. The story was also picked up in Spin (magazine) here. Readers should be informed when this kind of thing is sufficently  reported. I shall add the sources today. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the presented options, only 2 is particularly realistic: This definitely has weight in WP:RS, which is the test we utilize on this sight--not the idiosyncratic views of our own editors as to whether a particular story represents something that sources "should" be concerned with. Nor, insofar as this is sourced, do I find this to be a particularly navel-gazy topic. So Option 1 is clearly not feasible.  On the other end of the spectrum, Option 3 is needlessly redundant, burdened by an WP:undue amount of coverage of critical views.  That leaves Option 2, or some as yet unexplored alternative. And honestly, I think 2 works perfectly well here: this middle ground between two extremes is not always the best of a set of options, but I think in this case it is. Snow let's rap 14:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Personally, I side with Option 1. I think Kashmiri put it best when this was a company hiring a PR firm to do PR work which isn't exactly earth-shattering or particularly noteworthy. I also think that it is important we consider what exactly is noteworthy about this. I could see an argument for Option 2 as long as it is brief with a sentence, but we also have to remember that if we decide to put that here we need to be consistent and include that on every affected article. Tfkalk (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not our place as editors to decide what is a noteworthy event--that is determined by the WP:WEIGHT a topic receives in coverage, and trying to impress our own idiosyncratic notions about whether an event is remarkable or important enough in this context to cover would be a form of WP:original research, and is expressly disallowed under editorial policies. Likewise, we are not meant to be judging this under an WP:OTHERSTUFF/"we'll have to do it everywhere" analysis: the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk page for each effected article will determine whether it is appropriate there (and there may be cases of articles where it is WP:DUE and cases where it is not)--we are called upon to judge the issue with regard to this article alone, and apply our policies on weight accordingly. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 23:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is our place to determine if events are noteworthy and of encyclopedic value. In this case, there are other organizations that are relevant, but in this case undue weight appears to be placed upon Axios. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Option 1. Inclusing such information would be WP:NAVEL-gazing, and WP:UNDUE when considering the summary of the subject as a whole. Focus should be on the company and what it does, not controversies which aren't of interest to the wider world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 While it might be judicious to "out" undisclosed paid editors (though, in this case, disclosure seems to have been made), and I won't be too upset if options 2 or 3 are ultimately what it comes down to, I think including anything in a relatively short article like this is WP:UNDUE. A one-time low-to-mid five-figure reputation management expenditure probably constitutes a single-digit fraction of Axios' overall marketing budget and the number of sources in which this expenditure was covered was relatively discrete. For it to, therefore, occupy 10-20% of the entire article seems entirely out of proportion and unencyclopedic. We shouldn't introduce content for purely punitive reasons. I think it would be appropriate in an article on paid editing, though, or in the relevant section in the Wikipedia article. Chetsford (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
, :Could this large discussion be moved here please? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the reminder. —  Newslinger  talk   20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: The HuffPo piece is about me. I apologize for the lengthy explanation that follows, but this could set a bad precedent that undermines WP:COI policy. The Wired column does NOT say I "lobbied" for Axios or worked to "improve its reputation" - it reports that a Wikipedia editor included a summation of HuffPo claims about Axios on this very Wikipedia article. Wired does not claim to have evaluated whether that statement about Axios is true. If you believe the Wired article's account, instead of HuffPo's allegations, I think many will conclude including this in the article is WP: UNDUE and that Options 2 and 3 don't capture what actually happened. Instead, Wired makes clear that I, on behalf of clients like Axios, was always transparent about my COI, made my proposals only on the article discussion pages, and the proposals were reviewed by independent editors, all following the Wikipedia policies. Wired even ran a quote from User: Swarm: "Most of the supposed "whitewashing" seems to be mundane matters that don't harm articles at all, if not actual improvements, like making articles better comply with BLP." And, Wired ran a correction after publication -- following an internal review, they removed as false an allegation from HuffPo that I "minimized" controversies for NBC News, a direct refutation of the headline of HuffPo -- that I "whitewashed" NBC News pages. By contrast, HuffPo alleges serious wrongdoing. HuffPo's allegations were reviewed at length at the Admin Noticeboard because this is a rare instance where Wikipedia editors can directly judge an article's serious allegations. An uninvolved admin, User:SoWhy summed up the consensus of the discussion as "a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." See Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure. The admin User: Swarm investigated the essay's claims in-depth and found them to be "trumped-up clickbaity garbage." User: Someguy1221, an admin, was specifically highly critical of the headline, as well as large elements of the HuffPo article: "Well, I guess CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies." But options two and three both imply promotionalism and canvasing, assertions many senior editors and admins have heavily disputed. These two options are not neutral statements that say I publicly proposed updates and corrections in a manner that accords with Wikipedia policy.

Boths Option 2 or 3 also mean this article would reprint this grossly inaccurate HuffPo headline in References: "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages. And it almost always work." So when making this decision, please consider not just the content of Options 2 and 3, but also the accusations of a "whitewash" in the headline itself, since readers would be exposed to it, too. In addition to the AN discussion, we know Wired went so far as to run a retraction about the NBC News "minimized controversies" claim, a far weaker version than 'WhiteWash.". BC1278 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The term lobby (or more precisely, a grammatical variation of lobby) is used in both the HuffPost and the Wired articles:


 * The Wired article treats the terms paid Wikipedia editor, advocate, and lobbyists as synonymous. And the counterargument is extremely ironic. —  Newslinger  talk   19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reporting the implications of what happened when a Wikipedia editor summarized HuffPo for this article (all COI editing is chilled because "lobbyists" don't want to be known) is not taking a position as to whether the HuffPo allegation's about Axios (hired to "beef up" the page with "flattering" stats) is true or false. Even the "lobbying" accusation on HuffPo is about a totally different article and is specifically to allege canvassing in that one instance. She does not apply the term to the Axios articles because she uses it as a synonym for "canvassing", not for just making a proposal.BC1278 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above paragraph quoted from Wired is author Noam Cohen's independent assessment of the situation. Cohen chose the terms paid Wikipedia editor, advocate, and lobbyists himself. Yes, he is describing the aftermath of the HuffPost report, but with language that he determined was the most appropriate set of descriptors for Sussman. —  Newslinger  talk   20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Wired article, despite being roughly half the size of the HuffPost ref, is superior in most every way. This is just another example of why the general consensus for Wired as a publisher is good. The article provides a brief but surprisingly thorough review on attempts to influence Wikipedia articles, and how following Wikiedia's policies and guidelines creates a commendable solution. The HuffPost ref is nothing like this, being laser-focused on attacking Axios and Sussman. It's poorly researched, bordering on being an outright hit-piece. This is why HuffPost is on the fence when it comes to reliability. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Question (opinionated, maybe loaded): Wouldn't it be endorsing original research to suggest that we should look beyond what was reported and vote based on our judgement of the quality of that reporting, based on our unique ability to do so in this case. What about cases where we don't have such an ability. There's any number of things (BBC, CNN, even Reuters) notable news services get wrong covering the third world, like my country. Should I change wikipedia content that reflect those errors based on my unique ability to judge their accuracy, being a native of a country the reporting was done on? It seems to me like suggesting we look at what notable wikipedians thought about the accuracy of the way reporting was done and decide based on that is asking for exemptions from wikipedia guidelines on matters involving wikipedia itself, while it should be the other way around; ie. since wikipedians have a COI and bias when its wikipedia matters, we should refrain completely from making personal judgements and base the article content only on exactly what was reported. The fact that the reporters didn't get paid editing that followed wikipedia guidelines was alright and/or it happens all the time or any number of other excuses is inconsequential. The articles were giving opinions on real world consequences of such actions, including of provisions in wikipedia guidelines to facilitate such a thing. So, the suggestion that --if only those reporters understood how wikipedia works and how paid editors did nothing wrong or companies that hired them did nothing wrong, etc. --- are inconsequential; since the reporting was not an internal memo within wikipedia, but a real world reporting, as I said. So, what am I missing? Please help me understand. Usedtobecool (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that both Feinberg and Wired say, as per Axios, that I publicly disclosed my conflict of interest, I made my proposed updates on the discussion pages, and they were reviewed and approved by independent, volunteer editors, and all this was done properly and according to Wikipedia policy. She doesn't allege the reviewing editors for Axios were stooges or bamboozled. In fact, they accepted some of my proposed updates and turned down some. Just scan up in Talk! Yet options 2 and 3 are written so it's virtually indistinguishable from past Wikipedia scandals involving secret, direct editing of WP articles. And the issue Feinberg mentions about Jonathan Swan was a correction/clarification. The article originally said Swan had incorrectly reported a resignation; actually he correctly reported a verbal resignation by Rod Rosenstein, but reported it before the resignation was rejected by Trump. I think most people would say it's better for Wikipedia to correctly record for history that Rod Rosensetin did in fact verbally resign from Justice. An independent reviewer agreed. This is the rare instance where Wikipedians can properly judge the content of a secondary source better than anyone. Repeating the "whitewash" headline about Axios, even just in "References", is just factually wrong and irresponsible. How exactly are people or companies supposed to ask for corrections if it's going to be reported as a newsworthy scandal on Wikipedia pages about them? BC1278 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet options 2 and 3 are written so it's virtually indistinguishable from past Wikipedia scandals involving secret, direct editing of WP articles. I agree that option 3 comes across that way, perhaps to the point of WP:BATTLE. Option 2 seems a quick compromise after it was agreed that the Wired article is at least as valuable as the HuffPost ref.
 * This is the rare instance where Wikipedians can properly judge the content of a secondary source better than anyone. I agree. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND refers to the behavior of Wikipedia editors, not criticism contained in a secondary source. Furthermore, repeatedly claiming that a source is "unreliable" without support for that point is disruptive. We've already established that the core assertion in the HuffPost piece is accurate, namely that paid editing occurred on behalf of the company Axios. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We've already established Howso? --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the possibility of straying into original research when evaluating the reference: It's a very good question, but this isn't a situation where we have nothing but assertions and opinions to rely upon. References are not taken at face value, and a single reference may be reliable for some of the information it provides while unreliable for other information.
 * Evaluating a reference is not a vote. Editors should do the best to evaluate sources based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and what facts we have. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP policy requires that you specify issues with a source if you are going to contest it's reliability, not just express disagreement with the author's opinions. The notion that somehow WP editor's are in a "unique position" to evaluate the article is nonsense, because the author does not make any especially technical claims. The thrust of the article is to expose that Axios paid an experienced editor (I won't mention his name again, but he's a contributor to this discussion and has disclosed his COI) to influence the page as part of "reputation management." She accurately describes how he is prevented from editing the page directly and disclosed his COI, but continues to have sway through talk page comments, which she describes as verbose. None of the article's contentions have been disproven whatsoever; some editors disagree with her insinuation that paid Wikipedia editing, even if disclosed, is ethically questionable, but that' utterly irrelevant, both for weight and reliability (we don't judge either based on whether we like the author's opinions). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please build your own case about the reference, base it upon evidence, address others' concerns, and do so in a way that it looks like an attempt to work cooperatively with others. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read my comment? I a) addressed the core factual assertions made in the piece and b) assessed whether they were verifiable. They are. The rest of the piece is largely opinion. You, on the other hand, have made blanket claims about reliability without even attempting to support them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet options 2 and 3 are written so it's virtually indistinguishable from past Wikipedia scandals involving secret, direct editing of WP articles. If the COI editor could help to elaborate on what it is about option 2's words or phrasing which makes it virtually indistinguishable from past scandals involving secret or direct editing of WP articles. Also, is prior knowledge of those scandals required for the claim to be either distinguishable or indistinguishable in the first place? It would seem that those who had no prior knowledge might be exempt from that concern. Spintendo
 * I've already pointed out that I don't think option 2 fits that description. I'll add now that failing to identify it as declared paid editing is problematic.
 * Option 3 fits the description. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sincere apologies because I updated the section without waiting for the discussion to end and I have just realised that maybe I shouldn't have done that. If this is a problem please don't hesitate to revert but if so I would like to suggest a new option in light of the 2 extra sources that I added.


 * --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those articles.
 * The Spin article is churnalism.
 * The AdAge article is good, but only uses the Axios bit as a recent example, focusing on NBC News instead. There's some good background. Taking it out of context and giving it such weight are POV violations. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed you haven't formally weighed in on the RfC despite commenting a bunch. Do you have a favored position? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did on 16:11, 28 May 2019 --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly that it is taken out of context the non-NPOV violation and the churnalism accusations. It is an editorial comment from a staff journalist exactly about this particular subject. It is also factual taking into account the firm's website that underines the background of its owner and their techniques. Churnalism has nothing to do with media sources picking up stories from other sources. If this were the case then we would only ever accept investigative original reports as sources. This particular article contains original opinions that are not in the Huffpost article. You may want to read up what a WP:NPOV violation is as I haven't stated that the opinion expressed is a fact (speech marks are useful indicators). You may have meant that you consider it WP:UNDUE and that is of course always open to debate. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your interpretations of the sources, and how they support your viewpoint and proposal?
 * How is the Spin piece not churnalism? It was published the very same day as the HuffPost piece! What does it add? --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid i don't know what you mean by explaining my interpretations of the sources. They are RS they report this story so I don't have an interpretation of them. Churnalism is mostly reserved to describe media sources that rehash press releases and corporate communication. Almost all journalists pick up stories from other sources and comment on them. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So would it be safe to say that the Spin article is just a rehash, written the same day as the HuffPost article, without any further value? If not, why? --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   05:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See also, which was recently closed in favor of inclusion. —  Newslinger  talk   07:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

and others: I think this should be relisted at RfC because there's still no clear consensus yet and the RfC was never set up with a template so that neutral editors participating in RfC would be notified. Question: is the fact that it was never set up with a template and automated RfC notifications part of the reason why the RfC is taking so long for someone to look at it for closure? BC1278 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)BC1278
 * , it had been properly setup as an RfC see this edit. It's taking a long time to close because many RfCs take a longtime to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)