User talk:Horsemask

Stop Funding Hate
Hi there. I recently modified an edit you made to the Stop Funding Hate article which you reverted completely. Reviewing my own edit I can see that I removed some of your content in error, but some of my amendment still seems relevant. The edit summary is such a small space that I couldn't explain my reasoning very clearly there and I'd like to explain the reasons for my modification here. My edit:


 * 1) Corrected the mis-placement of full stops (punctuation comes before references).
 * 2) Filled in websites and access dates for citations.
 * 3) Removed a description of the most recent campaign as "the latest campaign" per WP:REALTIME, which suggests avoiding relative-time terms in favour of absolute specifications.
 * 4) Removed the reference to a "crowdfunding campaign [which] generated £80,251 from supporters in January 2018". I couldn't find any mention of this on the webpage which sources it. Could you let me know whereabouts on the webpage it says that?
 * 5) Removed "against a target of £45,000" – my mistake – that's in the "Budget" section of the Crowdfunder webpage.
 * 6) Changed "but also" to "and" for the fact that the level of debits and credits on its balance sheet is the same. Surely this is normal for a not-for-profit C.I.C.?
 * 7) Removed "all due within a year" which I could not find on the cited source. Whereabouts does it say that?
 * 8) Removed the statement "The Community Interest Company Report (CIC 34) filed with the annual accounts showed that the Stop Funding Hate board had been remunerated...". I had not spotted the official instruction: "If no remuneration was received you must state that 'no remuneration was received' below" and this is not done. Clearly I was wrong to remove this as unsourced.
 * 9) Removed the statement "...but did not disclose the amounts and which directors were paid." The sense in which I would regard this as unsourced is that WP should not be commenting on what sources do not say. This creates an implication of something from nothing – a technique commonly used by journalists – and would qualify as WP:WEASEL. After all, it would be equally consistent with the source to say "...it does not say that the directors are from Mars".

I'd be very interested to know what you think about this, and whether you think any of the parts of my edit should stand.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments
Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)