Talk:Kids In Need Foundation

What is not neutral about this page?? Just because I'm writing about a non-profit organization does not mean that I don't have a neutral view here. Also, everything is referenced on the page - what do you want referenced more? Buhealex01 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, can you please dislose your relationship with this organisation. Wikipedia has guidelines on conflict of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My parents recently donated to this foundation, not me, and were telling me about it. I was searching for their info on Wikipedia to see if they had a page. As a college student currently, I thought it would be a good idea to offer to make a Wiki article for them. After contacting them, they said that they had thought about it previously but never had time to go through with it, and would appreciate it if I wanted to work on it. There is no conflict of interest, and I did get permission from the foundation. Buhealex01 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we have a significant issue with the image you uploaded in the Commons. Images need to have specific permission from the copyright holders.  At this point, there is no way for anybody to tell that the image from the foundation has truly been released under the license as specified.  Also not the that Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia, and not a venue for promotion.  The entire tone of the current article is promotional in nature, including copying "quotes" from the their literature which in my oppinion is not appropriate for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The images I used are available on their website specifically for public use as web graphics - http://www.kidsinneed.net/news/press_kit.php. I am not promoting the foundation; these are the facts about it. I feel that I am doing my best to edit the information to be neutral. I've taken out info that promotes them and have written only the facts about the company. The sections are the general info at the top, which is their boilerplate, wrote about their programs like School Box and Teacher Grants neutrally, shown their award which doesn't mean that I'm promoting it - it's just what they have - and where their resource centers are. These are all factual, neutral pieces of information. If you still see something wrong with it, what would you like me to change so that I can better the article? Buhealex01 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have identified that the log and image with: "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." which is not what the source page indicates and is highly unlikely for a logo. What this means is I could paste and donkey head in the logo and they wouldn't stop me.  I could photoshop in a bunch of sharks into the resource center photo and they'd be quite alright with it.  I suspect not, and there is no indication on the source page that this type of release is intended. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Other opinions
Things have heated up quite a bit, and they should not have reached that point. I apologize to Buhealex01 for letting things get heated up. I'm only a single editor with my opinion, so it might be best at this point to try and get a third opinion. If you're amenable, we can ask for some assistance from Wikiquette alerts. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it sounded sassy - I didn't write it to sound that way, but when I reread it, it might seem sharp. I actually meant what can I do to better my article...I'll change the photo copyright things now, but what else should I do? Buhealex01 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the list of resource centers isn't an unimportant item. It's important for people to know where an organization's locations are. I feel that you have edited my article because of personal reasons from the discussion board, and am wondering how to have another wiki member check it. Thank you. Buhealex01 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a thrid party to review this situation at Wikiquette alerts. -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
This article reads like a press release. Originally, large swaths of the organization's website were copied here. The remaining wording is still an assemblage of sentences and phrases taken verbatim from the website.

The lead paragraph (see this version) is taken verbatim from a press release, which in addition to being a NPOV problem, is also a copyright violation.

Under teacher grants, material is quoted with very little context. In fact the material makes up the entire paragraph with no additional text to explain it. Instead, the text, complete with promotional tone stands as the entire subsection fo "Jump-N-Jugglin'" and "Someone to Watch Over Me". -- Whpq (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's good to see that they've been removed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Other content issues
A laundry list of resource centers is provided which don't really add to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you help me figure out what needs to by wikified? Much appreciated- Buhealex01 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It neesd to conform to the manual of style. Section headers should not be Title case, and lists should use bullets. (*) -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)