Talk:Effective altruism/Needs to go

Needs to go

So I twice tried to speedy delete this article. Maybe that was a little rash but I thought it would be the quick and dirty way to start solving the multiple horrific problem here. The entire AFD process is not something I do here. But if I did, it would probably be for multiple articles. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise )

Reson for Speedy was G11 needs rewrite by uninvolved editors. TeeVeeed (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD would be the correct process to go through for this since it would need consensus. I haven't seen the paid editing chain on the noticeboard, but since it seems relevant to the topic I'd be open to review. Can you summarize your thoughts on how the COI discussion is relevant to this article? Feel free to edit any that you see need editing within the article for NPOV, but I do not see that this meets CSD currently. Thanks for bringing this to attention. Shaded0 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know where to start. First I guess is rampant COI, paid advocacy as noted in the thread mentioned above. Secondly is the article itself. WP:UNDUE it's too long! Too much referencing of one philosophy professor's work. Sourcing from articles from 1971! (made to look like it is current info.).....in light of the problems, the entire article needs to go imo. Then if someone, someday wants to create an article--that would be the correct way to do this-I think.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been, as they say, problematic; see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Apparent brigading on Effective altruism for evidence of off-wiki brigading and a link to a productive sockpuppet investigation. This is in addition to the new paid-editing team discussed by TeeVeeed above. - Bri (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. ok. Just to clarify further, what do you mean by briganding? I don't think this actually reached consensus on the COI post for this from what I can see from your archive link. I agree this can probably be pared down for being promotional and regarding WP:DUE weight, but I have a hard time believing that the issues cannot be resolved within the scope of the current article. Shaded0 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not briganding, but brigading -- recruiting of like-minded editors through off-wiki means. Also described as WP:MEAT. - Bri (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the actual definition of meatpuppetry, otherwise feminist editathons would be banned rather than celebrated!--greenrd (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TeeVeeed, please note that WP:UNDUE refers specifically to disputed points of view, and merely is about comparative weight, not absolute article size. Since there is no clear opposing point of view to compare this article to, it cannot be said to have undue weight. The relevant standard for article length in general is WP:TOOLONG, but it's not clear to me how this article fits that criterion. There is no general rule that articles need to be short, as long as their length and content is supported by reliable sources. While Singer is referenced very much here, it's to be expected given the prevalence in secondary reliable sources of statements describing his centrality to the creation and ideas of the movement. Compare Marxism, for instance - it has nearly 80 mentions of "Marx " and "Marx'", while this article has only 16 mentions of "Singer " and "Singer'", despite the Marxism article being less than twice as long. Also compare the age of the sources on the Marxism article, which are often a full century older than this one. This is normal and acceptable for a Wikipedia entry. Finally, specific phrasings can and should be corrected for style and NPOV (as you have done with many of your edits which have been accepted). K.Bog 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User: Kbog yes I mean WP:TOOLONG. I'm now wondering if this material should be merged on the Singer page? If not, then the 16 or so referrals to Singer are imo WP:UNDUE. It's either one or the other. If this article is to remain at all, it should be reduced to a stub and rewritten imo. It does look like things are improving with the COI situation mentioned above, so hopefully, things will balance out correctly.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree that it should be merged with the Singer article, as it is too long for that, and there has been much independent third-party coverage of this topic separate from mentions of Singer, as well as much involvement from other notable individuals. Nevertheless, Singer is pretty central to this subject, and every mention of him helps explain the notability and/or details of the subject matter. As for COI, please don't take the unhelpful course of disregarding contributions from those of us who have worked independently on this article just because of a current dispute over paid editing, nor disregard content just because it happened to be paid. I think the article length is satisfactory (compare entries on similar niche social movements in Feminist movements and ideologies, such as Chicana feminism), but regardless, as per WP:AS, "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". I'm not involved in advocacy controversy up in the meta-space, but will continue to work on things down here. K.Bog 21:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]