Talk:Housing and Services, Inc.

Untitled
I'm not sure where this discussion is meant to begin (seems to me that folks should have to give a written justification for tagging pages, at least to provide a starting point for conversation), but this page - and the handling of it - brings up a huge issue for me that I think Wikipedia needs to come up with some specific rules to address. Here's what I mean: I have been doing research for some time on a New York non-profit called the Vera Institute of Justice. It's been around for 40+ years, and in that time, spun off a number of other non-profits to become independent organizations of their own. Some have survived, some haven't. Many of them have precious little in the way of internet footprint.

While I'm as interested in archival research as much as any social scientist (which is to say, not that much at all...), I find Wikipedia to be an excellent starting point for a whole host of research endeavors. Researching the contemporary and historical activities of organizations in the non-profit sector isn't one of them, unfortunately, and it seems to me these 'neutrality' and 'close connection' rules are probably one of the major reasons for Wikipedia's reduced functionality in this area. I know a handful of non-profits with sufficient funding and profile to foster the kind of outside actor attention necessary to compose, source, and post a Wikipedia entry that fits the necessarily stringent conditions Wikipedia sets for its articles; for the rest (probably %90 or more of non-profit organizations extant in the U.S., much less worldwide), where is this effort going to come from other than conscientious staff of the non-profit itself?

I'm fully aware that this opens the process up to abuses - that any staff member is that much more likely to promote the organization for which they work, because, well, that's probably their job. I think this justifies close scrutiny, and clear standards and guidelines on what neutrality might mean in this field. I think it's fair to tag or delete articles that don't meet this standard; however, I don't think that's the case with the article (Housing and Services, Inc.) in question. Sure, that last sentence, "socioeconomic inequalities that create insurmountable housing challenges for people who are elderly, sick, or otherwise marginalize," could stand to be backed up with some data (what's an 'insurmountable housing challenge?' where's the evidence that 'socioeconomic inequalities' create these challenges?), but to the extent that it's part of a mission statement (assuming it is that - it certainly has the ring to it) it's a fair representation of the ideals driving the organization's work.

In any case, while I could make wikipedia pages for the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), Safe Horizon, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, and the New York City Criminal Justice Agency as a part of my research on the Vera Institute of Justice, I'm not likely to do that. Frankly, I'll probably look back on this very tirade as kind of a waste of time - it's time that I should be spending doing my job. If someone else has the job of promoting these organizations (like their employees, for instance) why not let them do it? Yeah, exercise editorial control over the dissembling and hyperbole that's likely to be an unwelcome side-effect of this strategy - but at least have some content to start with, on these organizations that already do so much of their work in the dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.30.42 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)