Talk:Junior Achievement

Comment
This article needs to be edited to read less like an advertisement or brochure. It also needs photos, an infobox, sources other than the JA website, more categories, and more history. It seems to be one of the more important international organizations reaching directly into elementary and secondary schools, so the "Mid" rating seems appropriate.--Hjal 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just needed reverting, actually. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this was all just copied from the JA website. Problem is, it's not that famous, so there isn't a ton of information available on the subject. WikiTuxedo (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption that the copyvio cited here is -- instead -- the Junior Achievement organization copying from wikipedia ... to describe itself. Far more likely that the organization used its standard self-description. Note: The wp article is completely unreferenced. I also challenge the unreferenced text in the article; challenged, it requires inline citations, or is subject to removal. With the pending US legislation on copyvio, I think it best to consider the likelihood that this is a copyvio, and act accordingly. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm failing to see any connection, other than a business relationship, between the website, which appears to be a public relations firm, and this organization. Could you make it clearer for me.  Acting on your, further, concerns I did investigate more and remove the history section as a clear copypaste of, which appears to be the official website.  This was the only obvious copy and paste I could find.  Regardless of all that drive-by G12 taggings, such as the one you did, are not helpful.  This was never a G12 candidate even if the rest of the current text is infringing as there is clearly non-infringing versions in the history.  Also given the date on the website you used for the G12 it was also not an obvious copyvio and so not a G12 candidate for that reason either.  WP:CP was always the way to go if you had concerns but if you don't explain your concerns better it is difficult to assess the situation fully.  On the evidence you gave in the G12 it does appear to be a backwards copy.  Short of someone finding the source or explaining the connection between the website and the program better I still think this is a backwards copy.  I  certainly wouldn't be surprised if a PR company used wikipedia - even for one of it's clients.  Dpmuk (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this some more I still stand by my assessment but have relisted at WP:CP for a second opinion. Dpmuk (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is a copyvio for the reasons stated. If I took more time, perhaps I could find an earlier source.  I would think that when reviewing the article, sentences such as "Students who participate in Junior Achievement programs demonstrate a significant understanding of economics and business concepts" would jump out at the casual reader.  Given the focus of pending legislation, which suggests (in some interpretations) that organizations such as wikipedia should be more pro-active in rooting out and deleting copyvios, it strikes me that we would be doing a good thing by exercising sensitivity to the issue now.
 * But if it will make it easier, I will just challenge the text, which is all unreferenced. Challenged, it is open to deletion unless appropriate inline citations are provided.  This accords with our core policy of verifiability.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with your concerns. Currently we only normally delete copyvios if we can find the source, hence the existence of Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source.  That category's a lot smaller than I remember it so either someone has (possibly incorrectly cleared it out - calling it a monthly clean up category isn't really correct) or some code's broken somewhere.  Anyway the point is when we can't find a source articles are normally put in that category and grew old there.  I'm not sure that's the correct way to deal with it but it's how things are currently done, and I suspect it's what will happen here unless someone finds a source.  If you're worried about that way of dealing with things can I suggest starting a more general discussion somewhere.  WT:CP maybe?  Finally if you want to delete it for other reasons I'd have no objections (although that's not support either) - I will often do so when I can't find a source but the content is obviously encyclopaedic for some reason.  Dpmuk (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that cat. Interesting -- when you say "cleared out", do you mean "article deleted" or "tag deleted"?  It is interesting if we retain articles that have been so challenged, and are bereft of any sources whatsoever, to "grow old" on wp.  Does seem to be at odds with our core verifiability policy, and perhaps that is the sort of thing the legislators think wp could be more pro-active about, in addition to addressing those where we've found the source of the copyvio original.  In any event, WP:V is a core policy and does allow a challenge and -- in the absence of inline refs -- deletion, so we do have something in place that allows clean-up of unreferenced text.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not noticing your reply earlier. Having chatted with Moonriddengirl we now think the category may be the right size but that it looks wierd because all of the articles tagged upto July 2011 got dumped into that month.  I take your point about unverified articles growing old but I suspect part of the problem is that people working on copyvios often don't look much beyond that issue.  I suspect most of us would like to do so but due to the amount of copyvio work and the small number of people dealing with it I suspect a lot of us find we don't have time.  Dpmuk (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the interactive marketing manager for Junior Achievement - How do we fix this? I'm having an insanely painful time trying to figure out a resolution through the Wikipedia interface. webmaster@ja.org is the email address. Thanks.

For the record, an incorrect Prod was placed on this page. The reason given, by User:72.13.197.88 is below: "Junior Achievement wishes to delete this page and rebuild our own from scratch. This page was never build or managed by a Junior Achievement USA/Worldwide employee and does not reflect the appropriate actions or content therein. Junior Achievement will be creating a new/official user account for Junior Achievement for developing the new page."

In reply to User:72.13.197.88. You should be aware that Wikipedia does not host "official" pages, all content is user-created and the fact that you were not involved in the page is considered a good thing as one of our core policies is a neutral point of view and it is felt that people closely associated with a subject can find it difficult to achieve this. Indeed for this reasons editors are actively discouraged from editing pages with which they are associated in a way like you are. Please read WP:COI for much more on this, but the long and short of it is we are unlikely to be hosting an article which meets your requirements and you definitely won't have any control over it. Likewise we won't deltete a page just because you ask us to.

As for the copyright issue, now that's different. If the current text is indeed copyrighted to you then it will be removed. The easiest way to do this would be to leave a note here pointing (i.e. an url) at a source of the text. If this is not possible I'd suggest you post why not and we'll go from there. Of course you're also more than welcome to follow the procedures at Contact us/Article problem/Copyright but it may well be quicker to post here as I suggest as the right people will already be watching here.

If you are also User:Sbell1964co can I ask that you also try to remember to edit logged in as that will make tracking things easier for everyone.

I'm going to ask another experienced editor to look over this as well, not because I doubt anything I've said, but rather because I've got quite close to this now and think it would be useful to have an independent (and hopefully more experienced) set of eyes look over it to see if I've missed anything. Dpmuk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are multiple issues here. :)


 * First, with respect to the copyright status of the current article, it may include content copied from somewhere, but I can't prove it. I've searched the archived histories of the official site and didn't see anything. If an actual source is located, we will, of course, deal with it as a copyright problem. We don't generally presumptively delete content as a copyright issue without evidence that the contributor has a history of this. Right now, I don't see it. Everything User:Dpmuk says about steps available to any actual copyright owners is, of course, spot on.


 * The fact that the content is unsourced and rather self-promotional is a different matter, User:Epeefleche. :) There's plenty of sourcing out there to help build a neutral, reliable article. There's a lovely profile in The Rotarian from the 1950s here. There's another here and spread throughout the magazine from 1926. (Also: 1920) A 2007 Idiot's Guide talks about them here. Alas, tantalyzing taste here, but I can only see the first paragraph of their "Spotlight on: Junior Achievement]. There's more:, ... Not to mention . I think an excellent article could be written on this organization. :)


 * User:72.13.197.88, Dpmuk is correct that if you are affiliated with this organization you should really not contribute majorly to the article. Please see COI and FAQ/Organizations. While we'd love to have you help on Wikipedia, we find it best if people don't contribute to article subjects which are personally close to them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Wikipedia, can you please revert our page content back to what we posted in early March of this year? We have made good faith efforts to accomodate your feedback posted here, and it seems our page content has been targeted for nonexistent copyright violations, for an overly promotional tone and for lack of references, all of which we have attempted to address. I work for Junior Achievement USA's National Office in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the interest of transparency. I find it rather hard to believe that all other organizations' Wikipedia pages are maintained by people who have no connection to those organizations. We manage our brand very carefully and would not want our Wikipedia page content created by someone outside Junior Achievement. If Wikipedia has a Wikipedia page about itself, I surmise that you monitor it and update it yourselves, as any responsible brand steward would do.Sbell1964co (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your changes again as I still don't think the text you inserted is appropriate and the text was not wikified. You also removed the external links, categories etc.  Please do go and read WP:COI - you really should not be editing this article.  I also find it hard to believe that other organisation article's aren't maintained by people involved with the organisation but that doesn't mean that it isn't something we can aim for.  The issue here however is not just you editing but what you are inserting which both I and others feel is inappropriate in time.  Comments like "We manage our band very carefully" nicely show the conflict of interest you have - an encyclopaedia is not about brand management - it's about facts, for example if there was something negative about your organisation that was supported by reliable sources then we'd report it despite any effect on "brand management".  Encyclopaedias exist to spread knowledge and are not for advertisements.  Would you honestly expect to be able to dictate your entry in Encyclopædia Britannica or similar hard copy encyclopaedias?  I would also suggest you go and read WP:OWN as your statement " would not want our Wikipedia page content created by someone outside Junior Achievement" is in direct contradiction to that. Dpmuk (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to Epeefleche, January: Epee is right, of course this is a copyvio, and a promotional one to boot. Sbell, there can be no "we" here: you cannot control this article. You cannot ensure the proper branding of your organization in a Wikipedia article; you may not turn this into a promotional vehicle. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I just read Moonriddengirl's comments, and MRG is always right. I find this text all over the place but if she says she couldn't find it then, then I guess maybe those sites (such as this) copied it from here. Anyway, it's still promotional. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sbell, you are slightly mislead here. A corporation I work for (and founded) has a Wikipedia article. It would be an incredible conflict of interest for me to edit it (and would go against WP:OWN). Sometimes there are negative things written there about my business, but so long as they cite verifiable sources, they are allowed in Wikipedia. I don't even interact on the talk page, although if I were going to interact, that would be the place. So take a look at WP:OWN and you'll understand this discussion a bit better. And you're correct: Wikipedia DOES have it's own page, but it adheres to WP:OWN. Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not public relations management. Cheers. Mdechris (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

COI Contributions
I came across this string on the ANI board. Since the COI participant in this case is disclosed, engaged in the Talk page, and works for an organization that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, it seems like an opportunity for me to help.

User:Sbell1964co, I have contributed to articles like these without actually touching the article directly. I do this as a consultant in ethical Wikipedia engagement and my mentor encourages me to do pro-bono work on Wikipedia where it seems everyone could benefit.

You are correct about your role as a brand steward, but you also must respect Wikipedia's autonomy as an independent news and information source. Just like you would engage with The New York Times, but also respect the journalist's rights to write the story in a way that best suits its readers. And The New York Times may not always report on the story in a way the article subject would appreciate.

If you're willing to agree to cease all edits directly to the article-space, I will volunteer my time to walk you through how to improve the article from the Talk page. The result would be an article that is complete and high in quality by Wikipedia's standards. Let me know if you're willing and I will get you started. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junior Achievement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925081447/http://www.jaworldwide.org/about/about_news_fact.shtml to http://www.jaworldwide.org/about/about_news_fact.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junior Achievement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526132502/http://www.jainafrica.org/ to http://www.jainafrica.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

signs of public relations editing activity
There are a handful of obvious connected and single purpose accounts having been used to add contents to this article and a lot of those contents remain, therefore, I tagged UPE. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)