Talk:WE Charity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michalisk22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism?
Where is the criticism section? Plenty here: http://www.canadalandshow.com/craig-kielburger-founded-we-to-fight-child-labour-now-the-we-brand-promotes-products-made-by-children/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The article should cover alleged silencing of non-white voices: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/we-charity-amanda-maitland-1.5639716/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.184.98 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing
This article was affected by undisclosed paid editing. Please see for details. Feel free to remove anything from the article that is excessively promotional or improperly sourced. —  Newslinger  talk   06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This was archived to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157 -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism
Really glad to see this is finally a more balanced piece, and not just a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC) I concur with the comment at the top about adding a criticism section. There are some serious allegations at, http://www.canadalandshow.com/craig-kielburger-founded-we-to-fight-child-labour-now-the-we-brand-promotes-products-made-by-children/ 208.124.145.18 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added back the info regarding the CERB and ties to the Trudeau family. It was removed by an IP citing it as opinionated and biased against the Liberal Party of Canada; as well as grammar and citation issues. I've fixed the latter, and the paragraph now references to Trudeau Family instead of the LPC. Any issues with that part? -- Endwealth (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this content is relevant and should be included in the article. That said, I am not sure a "criticism" section is the right place to do it.  Generally, we are supposed to avoid controversy sections and instead deal with such material in a the prose of a regular section where it can be balanced with other content.  I think we should work this matterial into another part of the article or perhaps a section about this program generally including positive, negative and other.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Maybe a "Grants and funding" section if not a dedicated CERB section --Endwealth (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a few different criticisms/articles that are currently in there but not related to the government contract, along with stuff about voluntourism in general that should be included but isn't at the moment (eg  ). That said I'm also not a fan of "Criticism" sections as they quickly become a place where people cram in news stories and break the narrative flow of an article.Citing (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am note sure we should be adding more "criticisms". I think maybe we should split these into new sections that can be neutral.  One section should likely be "Planned administration of the Canada Student Service Grant" (or something shorter).  The other items can be fit into related sections, or new ones can be created, but we should probably be moving away from a "criticisms" section.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New separate article for the ongoing WE scandal?
Hello all, as the ongoing WE scandal grows, can we create a new article for that? Similar to the SNC-Lavalin affair. User:Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea. It's starting to span five or six related articles. Maybe WE Charity scandal?Citing (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it is probably time to spin this content off into a stand alone article. It seems to be getting similar amount of coverage as the SNC-Lavalin affair, and I think the amount of content about the scandal in this article, should probably be summarized, condensed and otherwise paired back as not to give undue focus on this one scandal.  This article is about the Charity and all the work they do, not just one scandal, even if it is a rather notable one.  Best way to provide proper treatment of both the scandal and the charity is to spin this content off.  Since there are two Ethics investigations underway (and others in Parliamentary committees), I also think it is fair to say the scandal is going to continue to receive media coverage.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with though that perhaps WE Charity scandal is a better name.  I think the title has to include the name WE Charity as that is how it is being commonly referred to in the media.  The proposed title 2020 Canadian Government contract scandal is far too vague.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, believe that it is deserving of its own article at this point due to the amount of media and political coverage over the past weeks. idk, is we should refer to it as a scandal or affair though. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Possible options:
 * Maybe WE Charity controversy? I've seen that phrasing used by various non-partisan media. If it gets an "official" name later we can always just move the article.Citing (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have boldly created it as a stub at WE Charity controversy. I tend to think we shouldn't shy away from calling these things scandals when the plain definition fits, but I can live with that title for now.  We should probably pare down the content here now, and include a link to the main article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Template removed
I removed the "paid editor" template placed in April. There have been a number of edits made since then. I ran a Who Write This check on the page and found that 18 editors have worked on this article. User:MarthaLetter who contributed 23.8 % of the edits, was blocked as a sock puppet and is no longer editing. User:MarthaLetter contributed content to articles about other charities that is positive but not necessarily biased. There is no mention of MarthaLetter being a paid editor. No other user added more than 11% to the existing article and most added less than 2%.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, the relevant information from WP:COIN is here.Citing (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Size of the Government contract and cancellation section
This section was initially quite large before the We Charity controversy was split off into another article. Attempts were made to reduce the length after the new article was created. In my view, this section should be a short summary of the significant details of the scandal, with the detail being covered in the more expansive article. recently added a paragraph both here and in the main article, and then re-added it here after I removed it noting this is a summary. If we keep doing this sort of thing, this article will be a mirror of the article about the scandal. So the question is, is this a summary? Or are we including any and all information about WE Charity and the controversy here too?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A sentence summarizing the Ontario content would make sense. Otherwise this one will end up being massive and unreadable.Citing (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaced Globe and Mail link concerning Wikipedia sockpuppetry with an archive link
The current link is impossible to read unless you're a member of the site. TheKing&#39;sMongrelSon (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for highlighting this. References on Wikipedia are allowed as long as they're published, which includes sources behind paywalls, sources not available online etc. It's unfortunate but out of our control that many good sources of information are behind paywalls and other barriers. However, I've manually run the bot that archives links on this page so that an archive link is there in the reference. I've also expanded the citation a bit to include the title, newspaper name, authors and date – this helps people work out what the reference is if The Globe and Mail change their website layout and URL formats, or if they are trying to search on a database that includes newspaper articles (e.g. one you might have access to as a member of a university). Let me know if you have any questions! — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)