Talk:Transparency of media ownership in Bulgaria

COI
I'm writing with regard to the tag COI added in the article. Thank you for having raised the issue and  for your reply. I'm curating a series of article on media freedom and freedom of information concerning South-Eastern and Eastern European countries. As you can see in the other articles I have created (for instance, Access to public information in Europe, Transparency of media ownership in Europe, Transparency of media ownership in Croatia, Transparency of media ownership in Romania, etc.) I'm very careful in selecting the sources and I usually do not use my organisation's references. But in this specific case, I found a very comprehensive interview to one of the main Bulgarian media expert on the topic of this article published in the website of my organisation, so I decided that it could be a quality source for this article. Please, let me know if I should remove that part of text to comply with Wikipedia's content policies on COI. Thank you very much! --Rossella Vignola (OBC) (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , the problem I raised was to do with original research. I don't see that your organisation's research escapes Wikipedia's definition of OR just because it was published on your website before being re-worked for Wikipedia.
 * dismissed my objection and tagged the article as COI which, to my eyes, is obviously the case. Even if you weren't citing your own material, the lede of your article is far more dense and involved than a neutral bystander would write, and doesn't offer an easy overview for a reader approaching the topic from scratch.
 * Can I offer you the example of Nicolae Blatt, written by his daughter? Despite the efforts of several editors it still reads way, way too intensely. Erica is too involved to see how it differs from other biographies. Likewise I don't think you see the difference between your article and other worthy articles like Water pollution in India.
 * The whole point to WP:COI is that you're too close to the subject to see the over-intense way that you're presenting the material. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)