Talk:Duncan Baker

Paid editing
. I've reverted the article to the state it was in before the undisclosed paid editing began. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And undid a lot of good edits in the process. More care, please. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

TheyWorkForYou as a source.
Third to last para currently reads: "Baker's Parliamentary voting record, as documented on TheyWorkForYou, includes that, as of November 2020, he had consistently voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance; consistently voted against measures to prevent climate change; and consistently voted for a stricter asylum system." I removed this content, giving the following reason: "Removing this para – TheyWorkForYou looks at voting patterns by bundling certain legislation together and then makes a *subjective* call on how a particular MP leans. However, this type of content really isn't encyclopaedic. It's okay to include things like scepticism on climate change legislation IF we have either quotes, or even just reporting of it from reliable sources. TheyWorkForYou is not an appropriate way of confirming someone's views on an issue" restored the paragraph with the following edit summary: "I respectfully disagree. There is nothng very subjective about TWFY's analysis, and the reporting of it is neutral and clear about its source." Let's discuss this in more depth: Interested to hear the views of others. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 9 voting "summaries" in that source (I put summaries in " ", because they're a take on voting patterns, and are totally subjective – regardless of the neutrality of TheyWorkForYou).
 * The fact that there are 9 issues laid out on the TheyWorkForYou source, and 3 have been selectively focussed on for that Wiki para suggests the user who added it was being selectively bias. Don't get me wrong – I don't suggest we lengthen it to all 9 issues covered in the TWFY source. That's silly. I just think we should take it out altogether.
 * Some of the "voting behaviour summaries" on TheyWorkForYou are based on 3, 2 or EVEN a single vote on a piece of legislation concerning a subject. This is why TheyWorkForYou is a rubbish source IMO. It draws conclusions of MPs based on very little supporting evidence. In the case of longer-serving MPs e.g. Harriet Harman or Peter Bone, I'd be more inclined to SUPPORT its inclusion, because there are long histories of voting patterns to go by for each of them respectively, and as such summarising their support/opposition to a particular issue is easily done.
 * The stance is found through an automated process (see here), more akin to a primary source of info with no analysis from reputable sources who have determined the MP's stance or ruled the stance significant by including it in a newspaper article. It relies on us individually determining a stance is significant and adding it, which brings up subjective views and is best avoided. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)