Talk:World News Media

PROD
I invite you to explain your concerns in more detail here, and would ask you if you represent or work for this business. Please note that information that may be negative(which I'm not sure how it even is in this case) isn't grounds to delete an article. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have removed the PROD, as the editor has a highly probable COI, which I have raised on their talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My concern is that the article in question does not lend anything particularly useful as an encyclopedia entry. appears only to have attempted to discredit World News Media and its associated awards by including it in a Vanity awards category and linking to a negative opinion piece in which the one example given is World News Media. Perhaps if we are going to have a discussion,  would like to disclose what his COI is?  If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship as per the wikipedia conflict of interest page. While I would like to assume good faith, I don't think the article in question maintains a neutral tone and remain suspicious of the editor's motives. Scottrouse (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone posting information critical of this company doesn't mean they have a COI against the company or that they are being paid to edit negatively about this company. However, someone claiming that content is "defamatory" (beware of using legal jargon, see WP:LIBEL) likely has some sort of connection to the company, as people typically don't use that term for things they are not associated with. As stated on your user talk page, you also need to state any COI or paid editing relationship that you have. Regarding the tone of this article, if you have reliable sources that have information that might improve the tone, please offer them.  331dot (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no conflict of interest, and have never been paid to edit Wikipedia (as has been stated on my userpage for quite some time). I have started articles on other "vanity award" companies, and have no particular view on WN Media. Amusing that Scottrouse is suddenly such an authority on conflict of interest, when they are yet to make a COI declaration. Edwardx (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, I merely suggested that might have a COI given the tone of the entry and invited them to disclose what relationship, if any, they have with World News Media or its past employees. I do not claim to be an authority on COI and confess that I am a current employee at World News Media. I am not a regular wikipedia user - we do not maintain any wikipedia pages so you can attribute any missteps in the process to this (and I do apologise for this). I am concerned that the article in question does not preserve a neutral point of view and contains statements from sources that are false., you request reliable sources which wikipedia defines as: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - those are in short supply these days, you need only look as far as this wikipedia entry for proof. The company would prefer not to have a wikipedia entry, I'm not allowed to remove it, and by virtue of the fact that I am an employee, I'm not allowed to directly edit the page. So what would you have me do?  Scottrouse (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for disclosing your relationship. You may also wish to post such a statement on your user page per WP:PAID(if you are using a computer to edit, click your username at the top of the screen, or in your signature above, to access it).  In terms of what you can do with this page, I can't think of too much that you can do.  You bringing a formal and full Articles for Deletion discussion would probably be difficult given your COI, but I don't think someone could actually stop you from doing it.  If you make your COI clear in the page, and base your arguments on Wikipedia guidelines and not what the company or you might want the page to say, you would have a chance at least.  If you wish to question the reliability of the sources in the article, you might be able to get others independent of your company to agree with you at the Reliable Sources discussion board(click WP:RSN to access) and then you could start a deletion discussion. If I were you, that's what I would do. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for this. While I respect 's considerable contribution to this site, I despair at his dressing up the passing of judgement in this way., the very fact that you have started articles on what you call "vanity award" companies suggests that you do have a particular view - one which has no place here. If you are not amenable to taking down the page and I hear nothing more from you, I will move things forward as has suggested. Scottrouse (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unable to take down the page - that's not how Wikipedia works. We do not call them "vanity award" companies, that is merely reporting reliable sources. And if I had only started an article for WN Media, then your criticism might make more sense. Edwardx (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. If you type World News Media into a search engine, wnmedia.com is the first result. You link to our site from your wikipedia article. Quoting your source, you make a false statement about our articles - most of which are produced in-house. Your source is an opinion piece, biased and unreliable, and provides a single negative point of view without a shred of evidence. Your wikipedia article places us in a category called vanity awards. We are not a "vanity awards" company. We are a multi-platform publisher and creative services company (which you'd know if you visited the link you posted at the bottom of your article). You choose to place us into a vanity awards category based on a single, unreliable piece of "journalism" from an outlet based on the other side of the globe. If Wikipedia works that way, then you are no better than a tabloid newspaper. You can and should mark your page for deletion. Scottrouse (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at this discussion, I think that you each have legitimate points and concerns. I'm honestly at this time not sure how to resolve them. An author request speedy deletion would likely be declined even if Edwardx agreed to do so, as other editors are involved.  Scottrouse, I would encourage you to, if you do not believe the sources are reliable, to proceed as I suggest above and discuss the sources in the forum I link to above. Edwardx, I would suggest that you try to locate additional sources which might strengthen the article. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not or  have a COI, they are certainly motivated towards providing a biased account of the company. I will be bringing an AFD discussion forward because, as I have mentioned, I'd rather not have the page at all. As a company we've been aware of the inappropriate corporate use of wikipedia for promotional benefit and have chosen not to create pages designed to further our content and brands. Just as we will not use wikipedia for the purpose of "overtly or covertly advertising a company", surely it follows that the editors in question should not use wikipedia for overtly or covertly demonising a company. I would invite the editors to read wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:CORP. We have no inherent or inherited notability - all of the sources you have provided are from bloggers and do not meet reliability criteria. In the meantime, I would like to suggest the following edits by reminding the current editors that we are not responsible for the actions of former clients and any awards commentary you insist on including is irrelevant to our business. Please remove. Additionally, including financial and personal data when we have no notability is irregular to say the least, and should be removed. I invite either editor to state their intention, broadly or with regard to specific edits.  Scottrouse (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit - First paragraph: "World News Media Limited is the London-based publisher of several business to business magazines. The company was established in 2004 and trades from London." Reason: our business is in publishing. While you may wish to push the view that we are solely a 'vanity awards' company, the body of work that is online and in print far outweighs any of your source material. Scottrouse (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit - You have listed Products as World Finance and Services as World Finance awards. As you are well aware, World Finance is only one of our magazines, you do not appear to have a full picture of our products and services. Please review.Scottrouse (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit: "The company's principal magazine is World Finance" - where are you getting your information from here? Please review.Scottrouse (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand and appreciate that you have already stated that you are an employee of the business; are you making these suggestions at the direction of the company or your boss, or of your own volition? There is a slight distinction there.  In any event, your arguments seem to boil down to the sources themselves; I would again suggest getting some other opinions on the reliable-ness of the sources at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello User:331dot, these suggestions and all comments to date are of my own volition. I was first made aware of the page while in the office. Over the past day or so, I have actually been on leave and have had limited time to deal with this, so please forgive the slow progress on my part. I did take your original comments on board and will ask over at WP:RSN today.Scottrouse (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested edits - The following statement you’ve made is factually incorrect: "Features profile winners of the World Finance Awards and supplements are produced such as Project Finance Deals of the Year - 2015 and Banking in Nigeria which may be sponsored for a fee." Once again you cite an unreliable source (Stuff), and strangely none of what you've written relates to that source. Please consider revising. The same unreliable source is then quoted directly, under the Awards heading. The quote contains information that is, once again, factually incorrect. Please consider removing altogether. Under the same heading, you go on to say: "In January 2017, the consumer watchdog of Botswana was threatened with a legal action for defamation by World News Media for questioning the criteria by which various banks in Botswana had been given a World Finance Award in 2012". The fact that you have chosen to cite a blog post is, in itself, incredible, but the statement also happens to be false. Gentlemen, fifty percent of what you’ve chosen to write about the company's products in your article is false and based on highly contentious sources. The remaining fifty percent does not qualify for a wikipedia entry. You need to consider immediate revision. Scottrouse (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 has been moved to earlier in the sentence to address the point about the reports. The source is the company's own website here, not Stuff. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please avoid stating opinion as fact in your opening sentence. "tied to the marketing of numerous vanity awards", the phrasing is not consistent with neutral point of view. Scottrouse (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That phraseology is a reasonable reflection of what is stated in the reliable sources, and thus complies with WP:NPOV. Edwardx (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should be writing about the company, not the awards - which is an important distinction. The article and sources focus solely on the awards, which, as I have maintained, is biased reporting on your part. Of course much of the source material is awards related - companies wish to promote an award they were given. This does not mean that we are solely an 'vanity awards' company, no matter how much you would like to make us fit that category. The sources all point towards award mentions, but not one of those sources has the word 'vanity' in it, this is something conferred by you, and represents an opinion.Scottrouse (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, the magazines are a fig leaf for the awards which, they suggest, is why they are published infrequently, for free, and mainly online (wholly online?). Where can a paper copy of these magazines be purchased? Are they deposited with the British Library as required by law? Regarding the different magazines, I had a look online at them and they appear to be published by a different company to World News Media which is why they don't figure in the article. Could you list below the different magazines, the web address of each and the name of the company publishing each so that we can take a look and incorporate them into the article if appropriate? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we're all based in London, I'd be more than happy to show you our mags (and where they are sold), show you what we do and give you a full breakdown, in person, if you're both amenable. I only suggest this because I've been on wikipedia for a week and I could use a walk. Alternatively, we can keep on going with this back and forth. In either case, I'll do my best to help you out. Scottrouse (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Philafrenzy you have just removed my edit saying it is not constructive. Can you, please, explain why the sentence "World News Media is a multi-platform publisher of financial, business, technology and travel magazines" is not constructive in your opinion? Prebenlarsen (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We know who you are and what you are up to. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not a constructive answer. Can you, please, answer my question? Prebenlarsen (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you associated with World News Media in some way? 331dot (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not directly, I am a journalist, in the same line of work. Prebenlarsen (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you ever worked for them or any company associated with them? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No Prebenlarsen (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is your employer (or you personally if self-employed) a direct competitor with this organization? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a freelancer. Philafrenzy can you answer the question? Prebenlarsen (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who asked you to edit this article? You have never edited before. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason for editing this article is to provide quality journalism which requires unbiased objectivity in, both, the scope of this article as well as beyond it as the article attracted attention of the group of journalists interested in cases like this. I can see Philafrenzy you are very reluctant to provide Wikipedia users with quality journalism or any reasonable explanation why you don't want to do that. Am I correct? Prebenlarsen (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper or other journalism outlet, but an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, it is encyclopedia and, according to Wikipedia definition of the term encyclopedia, as such should "convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain" What criteria do you use to decide which piece of information is important or not? Why the statement "World News Media Limited is a multi-platform publisher of financial, business, technology and travel magazines" is not constructive and cannot be included in the article? What criteria did you apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebenlarsen (talk • contribs) 2017-09-06T08:50:35 (UTC)

Proposed changes

 * Please avoid stating opinion as fact in your opening sentence. "tied to the marketing of numerous vanity awards". User:Edwardx, says that it "is a reasonable reflection of what is stated in reliable sources", but fails to understand that it is his reflection, and therefore biased. My suggestion for an introductory statement would be: "“World News Media is a multi-platform publisher and creative services company covering financial, business, technology and travel sectors. Its publications include World Finance and The New Economy. The company was established in 2004 and trades from London.”" You could then at least reference a primary source rather not giving one at all. Perhaps not ideal, but it’s a neutral statement that adequately describes what the company does. The job of the editor is not to push the reader in one direction or another, it is to write a neutral article. The opening statement doesn’t really adhere to WP:5P2 with regards to this. Let the reader arrive at their own conclusions.
 * That was said by someone else. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, Philafrenzy - you do appear to have a collaborative relationship with User:Edwardx on this, and have made the majority of the edits. Corrected. The comment still stands. Scottrouse (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The history of the company is summed up in seven words, I’m not sure it is worth including as it is mentioned in the introductory statement.
 * ”The company's principal magazine is World Finance” - unreferenced statement.
 * ”Editorials are credited to Project Syndicate” - source needed.
 * "The magazine features in-house produced copy plus generic topical non-exclusive agency-produced articles" - unreferenced statement.
 * "Features profile winners of the World Finance Awards and supplements are produced such as Project Finance Deals of the Year - 2015 and Banking in Nigeria" - fragment.
 * ”Other magazines published by the company or associated with it" - well, which is it?
 * The 'See also' section is in no way related to the topic - which I again have to state: should be the company.

That's all thirteen third-party sources. I understand that it's difficult to have a newcomer point these things out to more seasoned Wikipedians, especially a newcomer with a disclosed COI, but I feel the sources and the overall tone of the article need a lot of work. At this point in time, I confess I don't know how to fix this article without a rewrite. Even then, it would either be too short or too promotional to be considered an entry, which is why I need your help. Thanks for your attention, Scottrouse (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are a long way from reliable, consisting of award mentions that are clearly press releases, promotional pieces padded out from press releases and posts from blogs.
 * Consumer Watchdog of Botswana - If you were to take a look at the Consumer Watchdog of Botswana source, official though it sounds - it is a blogspot by one guy, Richard Harriman.
 * Stuff.co.nz - opinion piece, based almost entirely on an unnamed source.
 * Pakistan Observer - article is 7 lines long, clearly a press release.
 * Mirror business - promotional article.
 * Redd-Monitor - Redd-Monitor is a blog, nothing on the site to suggest that it is anything more than one man's opinion.
 * http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/07/so-how-exactly-did-worldwide-c.html - an archived blog post from a tabloid.
 * Gov.uk article - not sure how this is relevant. You're attempting to infer an opinion about one award. The article is not about awards though, is it? It shouldn't be.
 * prweb.com - press release.
 * Trinidad & Tobago guardian - press release.
 * Malaya Business Insight - press release.
 * Muscat Daily - promotional article.
 * Arab News - press release.
 * Jamaica Observer - promotional article.
 * Hi there. You might want to review the instructions on how to submit edit requests. Currently, I can't seem to find any specific requested changes (Point 4:"Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it..."). None of that seems to be present right now. You should try re-formatting the request, or seek help elsewhere. Regards, VB00 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:VB00, thanks a lot for your comment. I think you are right - I have had a lot to say about what is wrong with the article, but have not been able to propose a better version. I have amended my first point with a suggestion. I have also amended my second point as it really only served to bring some levity to the talk page, rather than being constructive. Any points that I can see have been attended to, I have crossed out. The listed sources, I don’t really know what to do with. In my opinion, they are not adequate to justify the article’s existence, but consensus has gone against me on this. It must be said that User:Philafrenzy has worked tirelessly to try to fix this article, and while I don’t necessarily agree with what he has chosen to include (such is my COI), it is in better shape than it was. Scottrouse (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidonors
This user just offered a donation in return for edits. I declined. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Which user? Scottrouse (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikidonors (talk) on my talk page. They headed up their messsage "WNM". Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)