Talk:Scholastica (company)

Copyvio check passed Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Flipped journals
The story of Precision Nanomedicine at https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/former-elsevier-editors-start-community-led-publisher-launch-oa-journal/ is illustrative. Let's see if some secondary source picks it up. Nemo 10:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits by a different Scholastica employee
"If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale....Most content dispute discussions should start at the disputed article's talk page."...

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, ... employers, ... Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, ... The FTC regards advertising as deceptive if it mimics a content format, such as a news report, that appears to come from an independent, impartial source:" says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

"Paid Contributions Without Disclosure You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." says https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities which Djpadula5 violates. 100% of her edits are advertising for her employer. Her employer is Scholastica as she reports on https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/danielle-padula/ and x.com/scholasticahq/status/1572957606183829506 but not on Wikipedia.

"Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits; your contributions should improve the quality of the project or work. ... All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, ... 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects Deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content, or hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content. This includes but is not limited to:

The repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view (also by means of unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources" says https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3.3_%E2%80%93_Content_vandalism_and_abuse_of_the_projects which Djpadula5 violates.

Djpadula5 fails to show any evidence that Scholastica waived a fee. Google searches like https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascholasticahq.com+gloster&sca_esv=c89792427d75d45d&source=hp&ei=RkjjZfy0H4KfhbIP-aGmyAI&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZeNWVjlQ2xXfK9anAlUEeQyuh-S7hx49&ved=0ahUKEwj879fs9NWEAxWCT0EAHfmQCSkQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=site%3Ascholasticahq.com+gloster&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih5zaXRlOnNjaG9sYXN0aWNhaHEuY29tIGdsb3N0ZXJI7GBQAFi5T3AAeACQAQCYAXCgAfoEqgEEMTMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAfgBApgCBaAC_ALCAg4QLhjHARixAxjRAxiABMICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQABiABMICFxAuGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BGJgFwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAgsQABiABBiKBRiSA8ICCBAuGLEDGIAEwgIIEAAYgAQYyQPCAgsQLhiABBjHARjRA8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIHEAAYgAQYCpgDAJIHAzQuMQ&sclient=gws-wiz and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=gloster&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 do not seem to show that Scholastica waived a fee.