Talk:Best Friends Animal Society/Archive 1

Edit warring
Unless you people want to continue reverting to your favourite version for the rest of your wikipedia life, please start discussing the issue here. Please also read Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash edits by self-interested parties
My last post contained verifiable, current references. Articles of incorporation are public domain, which is one of the most reliable sources. That being said my last post was hasty as it was incomplete. I will complete my research and then repost. As a note, I have no affilition with the dogpress; I simply have an interest in the history of the organization and have spent much time reading and researching the topic.

There is an ethical dilemma with employee's editing their company's wikipedia pages. Doing so leaves a stain of bias on the content. Given that Best Friends is a 501c, it is crucial that the information on this page is impartial. The public bases their donation decisions on this information. They will expect Best Friends material to be partial, but not wikipedia. We must take our responsibility as wikipedia editors serious and provide a balanced and truthful viewpoint of the organization.

Layla2008 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
I've posted this also to WP:COIN. If the separate assertions are true, the editors on both sides of this dispute have an undisclosed conflict of interest.

As to the content: based on an initial skim, I agree that Layla2008 appears to have an axe to grind and is bringing in a lot of original research. But nevertheless some members' background in The Process Church is perfectly openly described at the Best Friends Animal Society's own website (see the bios for Francis Battista and Faith Maloney, and the whole account Before Best Friends whose last two section describe the transition from Foundation to Best Friends). If it were neutrally phrased and not synthesised into a hostile ''Shock horror! Horrible cult!'' backstory, I can't see why such prior history shouldn't be mentioned. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)