User:Fusion2186/sandbox

I would like to contribute my oppinion on the matter but before I do so, I would like to point out that this is my first time offering a 3rd opinion and that I have only been an editor for a little over a month. My opinion of this isssue is as follows:

My interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF is that they should be used in concert rather than independently. For some information there is no reliable secondary sources of information. Such as staffing, geographical locations, additional charters etc.. These in my oppinion would fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy that was quoted above and are acceptable for use in the article. However, they should be limited in scope to the details of an organization rather than the actions of an organization.

Since the actions of an organization are subject to a greater amount of interpretation, they should fall more under the WP:PRIMARY guidelines. Actions of an organization as described by the organisation will almost always project the organization in the greatest light possible, they also tend to be polished and sometimes embellished making them difficult to verify and thus violating WP:V. For example: An organization claims that it teaches free classes in computer programming on its webpage. This webpage is cited as a source in the article about the organisation stating it "teaches free computer programming classes". This information is presented as a fact using Wiki's voice. In reality the class has actually consisted of coffee drinking and discussions on animal husbandry and little to nothing to do with computer programming. In situations like this, it is up to the secondary source to evaluate the action to see if it matches the claim made. Once that evaluation has taken place and has been published by a source known to be reliable in reporting, it can then be presented as accurate information in the contents of the article. The information disputed in this specific circumstance, in my opinion, does not meet the standard for WP:PRIMARY possibly WP:V and is not the type of information that should fall under WP:ABOUTSELF.

WP:V Reads as follows: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.  Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."

WP:PRIMARY reads as follows: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.  A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.  For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.  Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them . Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

I think the information specifically regarding actions and events of the organization should be left out of the article until additional sources can be found. ~