Talk:The Reader Magazine

Independence of sources

Greyfell,

Happy New Year! Thanks for your contributions to The Reader page. Even though I don't agree with some of your contributions, I am glad you are making them.

There is a whiff of hypocrisy, however, in the way in which you encourage others to learn about the importance of Wikipedia culture, order and its code of civility and yet you do not seem to follow these principles, particularly evident when you remove the work of others' with a click, insisting your opinion reign over facts which is a form of bullying.

For example, regarding The Reader Magazine page you write, "Currently, the only substantial independent coverage of this magazine is a 2011 article in the Columbia Journalism Review"

This isn't quite true.

In fact, it is not only untrue, you have continued to remove a statement about The Reader Magazine made on the record by Samir Husni, a full Professor of Journalism for two decades, who is described by Print Power Magazine as "one of the world’s most influential voices in global publishing, advising major publishing houses across the globe on their editorial and advertising strategies. When he talks, the magazine industry listens…”

The CJR article you cite as the "only substantial independent coverage" was written by a graduate student according to the information you cited.

I'm wondering why you think a graduate student's work, one no longer associated with the publication, is "substantial", while a full-professor of journalism, "one of the world's most influential voices in global publishing", who's interviewed, from the looks of his site, the publisher of Ebony, Time Magazine and The Reader Magazine-- isn't substantial?

On what basis are you reverting to a version of your design, which erases the contributions of five editors-- with a click?

Why have you reduced a 15-year old publication to a description which is generally negative in content? It is particularly odd that you are removing information given the Wikipedia's stated intention to encourage people to add descriptive information to magazines they know.

Keeping the statements by one of the "world's most influential voices in global publishing" about The Reader, one could argue, provides a more balanced reading. The publication earned the accolades. What is wrong about including them?

Finally, why have you sought to reduce a 15-year old publication to what is a clearly incorrect assessment that "the only substantial independent coverage of this magazine is a 2011 article in the CJR"?

That is in fact your opinion-- which you are entitled to. However, you are doing more than exercising your opinion when you seek to define a subject without including voices that present a positive and much different view.

I hope you allow the publication page to evolve-- in the spirit of Wikipedia culture, which you admittedly probably know far better than I do-- without the arguably heavy hand you are using to shape it. Happy New Year! WikiBalandina (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page for discussion. I hope you will revert your recent edits while this discussion is ongoing to avoid WP:EDITWARRING. There is time to figure this out, but your contributions have serious problems which need to be resolved. I understand this may be stressful for you, especially if you are connected to the magazine, but let's keep accusations like hypocrite and bully out of this. There is a policy of not making personal attacks on Wikipedia.

Both you and our editing colleague Ginger2020 have insinuated that I have a COI or ax to grind. I do not, and you haven't provided any evidence of your accusations, even circumstantial. To be honest, this kind of thing poisons the well, and makes it harder to collaborate productively. I've edited thousands of articles on a broad range of topics, while both of you have only edited this one topic. I think there is a valid reason to ask if you have a conflict of interest, but you have evaded the question, so I'll drop it for now other than to remind you that undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia's policies.

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If we disagree on how reliable or important a source is, we can discuss that. Samir Husni's comments need to be contextualized as being an opinion published on his blog, while his interview needs to be treated carefully as a WP:PRIMARY source. Blogs are what's known in Wikipedia jargon as a WP:SPS, a self-published source. This one is better than some, but they are seldom usable at all, and should not be given too much weight without secondary commentary. Yes, even if they are by journalists, professors, or in this case, both. I'm willing to accept that he is an expert in his field, but that is not an excuse to add promotional content to an article. It's informational value must be weighed against its obscurity. To suggest that the article should include positive commentary as a matter of balance is false balance. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Viewpoints are presented in accordance with their prominence in published sources, not in opposition to each other according to a subjective assessment. See WP:DUE. It is not good practice to add flattering content just because an editor believes the article is currently unflattering.

Wikipedia is, by policy, not a platform for advertising. That is why I (apparently) said that the article lacks substantial independent coverage. This is a blog by a respectable but obscure professor. Furthermore, this is an interview with Chris Theodore, which is not independent. It could be used as a source, but only with great caution, and only without the WP:PEACOCK promotional fluff.

So the only substantial, independent coverage is the article in the Columbia Journalism Review. That work is not a SPS. It has a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" required by WP:RS. I agree that it's not perfect, and I have tried to rephrase the section to clarify what is being reported. This meant expanding it, and it may now be more prominent than needed, but unless you can find independent coverage of the story itself, the sections should be kept to a matter-of-fact style explaining what the articles found. Emphasizing that the articles were written by a graduate student is WP:EDITORIALIZING. Columbia Journalism Review is published by a graduate school, and it's not surprising or noteworthy that she's no longer with the paper, so why bring it up?

The lead of the article should summarize each section of the article. It doesn't matter how long ago it was, because encyclopedia articles go by a historical perspective. If there are a ton of other sources out there drowning out these plagiarism accusations, then it might not belong in the lead, but lacking that, this should be included. How much weight it should be given is open to debate, but it does appear the magazine considers it significant, as established by the lawsuit.

Past consensus has established that in general, accolades need one of two things to be included. They need to themselves be noteworthy, such as would be worth an article themselves, or they need to be supported by independent sources which provide enough context to be informative beyond mere promotion. Patrick Soon-Shiong#Legacy is brief and unsourced, which suggest that the "Patrick Soon-Shiong Innovation Awards" would need very good sources to be worth mentioning on this article. Nominations are edge-cases, but the less notable the award, the less likely the nomination is to be encyclopedically significant. Likewise, mentioning the Global Impact Investment Rating System sounds impressive, but it doesn't provide any outside insight into what it means. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greyfell,

Thanks for your message.

This message helps a lot more to understand what it is you are trying to do. I certainly agree with some of the stuff you're raising here. That said-- and not taking anything away from having said that-- I still think the version that was appearing before I reverted most recently had many more problems than the version that is up now.

The primary problem with the extremely short version is that it paints too negative a picture because available, accurate information about the publication has been stripped away. It's as if the entire publication's identity is reduced to not only a controversy but a black mark, which is not fair.

It's for this reason that the version that actually presents other information about The Reader is more accurate.

That said, I'm wondering why you didn't answer the questions I asked?

Nonetheless, thanks for your message.

WikiBalandina (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@WikiBalandina: How did I not answer your questions? The article needs WP:RS, not personal familiarity. Your statement that the shorter version is "too negative" is subjective, and, as I said above, seems to imply a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia articles are balanced. It is better to have a short article than to allow Wikipedia to be misused for advertising. You say that the information you've added is "available" and "accurate", but you still haven't provided independent sources, or for some points any sources at all. The info you've added about the historical circulation numbers, for example, is not supported by any sources used in the article. That information would be useful, but it needs to be sourced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of all information. You say the info is accurate, but you leave no way for anyone to verify that. Being supposedly accurate is not enough for inclusion. This is explained over and over in the many policies and guidelines I've been linking here and on your talk page.

Another example: The Environmental Paper Network published something in 2011. You have provided no independent way for readers to learn who they are or why their assessment is encyclopedically significant. Linking to their own website in the body of the article is not acceptable, as it's a violation of WP:MOS and WP:EL, but more importantly, it's not independent. The fact that the source is hosted on Reader's own website undermines its credibility here. It's appears you've readded the paragraph because it's flattering, and you've basically said as much, but that's not an acceptable reason to include or exclude content.

Part of editing, as I'm sure you know, is judging what information to leave out. Wikipedia's stated intention is not for people to add information they know, it's to build an encyclopedia. This means that information must be from a neutral point of view, and it must be verifiable. Padding out the article with relatively obscure information is not neutral, and much of the info you've added is not sourced and not verifiable. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Again

@WikiBalandina: Multiple experienced editors have now removed this content, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Discuss the issues I have raised before restoring again. Also, do no mark such edits as minor, per Help:Minor. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. While you may have a good understanding of Wikipedia, your knowledge of the information available about The Reader is considerably less than those of us who actually live in the region where the publication appears. The other editors to whom you have referred also have no local or regional knowledge of the publication. As I have stated "again", the primary problem with this shortened version is that it ignores any possible positive statements made by others about the publication ostensibly to reduce statements that sound "way too promotional", which is entirely subjective, and in this case results in a lop-sided, overly negative entry.

This removal includes a statement about The Reader Magazine made on the record by Samir Husni, a full Professor of Journalism for two decades, who is described by Print Power Magazine as "one of the world’s most influential voices in global publishing, advising major publishing houses across the globe on their editorial and advertising strategies. When he talks, the magazine industry listens…”

Not all positive statements are promotional statements. Stripping the entry of positive statements doesn't make it more objective but less descriptive and useful. In truth, I've tried hard to add content to the entry with fairness. It is not fair to keep reducing any publication, let alone one that has appeared for more than a decade here, to the sparse, mostly negative description that editors who have virtually no knowledge of this publication are attempting.

In this instance, in which editors with knowledge about this publication are adding to its description-- words which you and others with considerably less knowledge on this entry are eliminating-- I think the precedent being set is not in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, which is a civil, and global platform for the purpose of advancing understanding and knowledge, not dogma. Place and location have a unique role in the cultivation and ever-increasing refinement of this knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiBalandina: We've already been over this. You don't know where I, or the other editor are from, and assumptions about what we do or don't know are irrelevant and missing the point. Please see Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. More importantly, that absolutely doesn't matter to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability before going any further, as this is a core principle of Wikipedia. Personal familiarity is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. I feel like I've already said this, so is there some confusion about this I can answer? "Overly negative" is also subjective. Wikipedia article do not have a target for how negative or positive articles should be. Articles reflect reliable sources in proportion to their weight, with independent sources being given substantially greater weight than press releases or interviews with involved people. Nationally recognized news outlets are likewise more heavily weighted than local sources or blogs, even if they are by experts. Samir Husni is an expert, but his interviews with people who run the magazine are not independent of the magazine, and even expert opinions must provide clear, neutral attribution so that readers can assess their bona fides. Sampling the most flattering quote, which is only used as the lead-up to a softball interview, is cherry-picking. By touting his interview subject Husni is essentially promoting his own article, as well. This is fine for what it is, but it undermines his neutrality for this purpose. If you cannot address these issue, we have a problem, and will have to involve more editors. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiBalandina: NPOV is a key policy. We can adhere to it by using high quality third party sources. We also need to ensure that due weight is given to a source. The reason your edits were reverted is because you are adding back all the promotional information sourced to primary/affiliated sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The Reader Magazine is cited as one of only 1,961 B-Certified companies (along with Seventh Generation, Etsy and others). Why is this fact not yet part of this entry?

The Reader Magazine is a California public benefit corporation certified by the nonprofit B Lab to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. My understanding is that this is a very difficult designation to earn and is at the heart of the publication's identity, given that there are very few magazines that have earned this designation, cited at the non-profit, independent (https://www.bcorporation.net/). Why does this information not appear yet at The Reader Magazine wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Without independent sources its usefulness to readers has not be established. By policy, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or advertising, so including this without context is totally improper. The number of B-Certified companies in existence is irrelevant. The word "rigorous" is a WP:PEACOCK word, and should be avoided. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

An unproven accusation shouldn't be allowed as a "summary" lede

With respect to a publication, few things are as damaging to credibility as accusations of plagiarism. After reading that as part of the entry, for many people, nothing else will matter. But that's not why it shouldn't be part of the "summary". It shouldn't be part of the summary because it is an allegation-- and it is not for any editor to elevate an allegation to the point of summary of identity. That is unethical-- it is a journalistic error. Would it be fair-- and good editing-- if your own name was "summarized" by an allegation made against you? That this rudimentary point would even be arguable is indicative of the low standard for editing that exists on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to propose a way to rephrase this to be more respectful, please do, but removing it based on how unflattering it is won't work. Wikipedia summarizes many unflattering aspects of topics. This issue is, according to reliable sources, the most significant aspect of the paper, so downplaying it would only makes sense as a form of promotion. Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Wikipedia is a media institution. Its unwritten and written policies will impact who is drawn to it and inhabits it. Some of the unwritten and written policies will clearly repulse those who have the most to give with respect to the understanding of a topic. Unfortunately, the reality of this has become abstract and nearly an unreality. This illustration may serve to shed light on it.

Suppose the reward for understanding an obscure topic was not a matter of satisfaction, but your very life depended on understanding it. You found yourself in the unfortunate position of being a prisoner and one evening you were handed two books on the subject of barnacles. You were told you could choose one book from which to study the subject and in the morning you would be asked three questions about barnacles. If you got any of the questions wrong you would be shot immediately.

One book, you were able to determine, was edited by someone who spent eight years studying and writing about barnacles. The other book was edited by someone who had earned a reputation for editing books but had spent only ten weeks studying barnacles.

What book would you choose?

The entry for The Reader Magazine, to those who have an understanding of it, has been vandalized. In its present form it confers no understanding of what the magazine is. For those with a self-described “neutral point of view” towards the magazine, partly if not totally as a result of their not having an understanding of it, that the entry is not accurate or fair is not significant. Why do people refer to an online encyclopedia? They do to understand something.

Currently, in the description of The Reader Magazine in Wikipedia, a refuted allegation of plagiarism appears in the actual summary of the entire entry.

No editor has the right to figuratively and literally elevate an allegation against something to that of a summary of the thing’s identity, particularly if the allegation is serious enough that it would strongly and negatively color the perception of information that follows the summary.

To do this is a breach of trust between the editor and the consumer of the description, not to mention an unethical act towards the subject being described by the editor.

Allegations of plagiarism against a publication are as injurious to that publication as allegations of being a communist in the McCarthy era. The allegations may be true or they may be false, but that they are made at all is extremely injurious, which is why they are sometimes made.

Since the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide understanding, editors participating in the shaping of the online understanding of a magazine may wish to consider that a magazine imparts its identity slowly over time to a group. Members of the group will have a level of tacit understanding of it that people outside the group cannot have but could find valuable.

If in Wikipedia “understanding of a thing” is not prized and promoted it will surely limit its utility and value. How might the understanding of a magazine be prized and promoted?

What may accomplish this is for editors from within the group that actually receives the magazine be given the opportunity to contribute, without their edits being changed or removed significantly, if it is clear that fairness and accuracy are extremely important to these editors.

It may be the case that these contributions, though not in perfect alignment with the formal code of Wikipedia spark others to find and add the necessary information, as long as this is all done in good faith.

What is Wikipedia for? It is to describe the essence of a thing. If you subordinate that purpose to anything else, including codification, the accuracy and utility of Wikipedia is not self-sustaining.

In the case of The Reader Magazine, it is unfortunate that currently the Wikipedia entry is neither complete or fair. This publication exists outside of Wikipedia, in the real world, and an incomplete and unfair description of it undoubtably has a negative impact on it.

How might the description be made more complete, more fair and accurate?

Include information on its social, environmental impact that is verified and cited by the third-party, non-profit B-Corporation, a designation The Reader earned, and to not include this is unfair. https://www.bcorporation.net/community/the-reader-magazine

Since the description includes allegations of plagiarism, include also the section “Critical Reception”, and the actual words from the review of The Reader by Dr. Samir Husni, the director of the Magazine Innovation Center at the University of Mississippi, School of Journalism. To leave this out makes the description unfair and less accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You say "able to determine", but we haven't been able to determine that at all! If you have spent eight years "studying barnacles", you should be able to prove it. What does 'study' mean, here? Do you have an advanced degree in marine biology, or are you pirate who loves keelhauling? Has your work been peer reviewed, fact-checked, and edited, or was it slapped up on Amazon as a self-published E-book? You haven't explained how you know so much about this magazine, but you want to dramatically alter the article's content and tone, and are unwilling to adapt to, or even acknowledge, Wikipedia's core policies, guidelines, and culture. We are not going to just take your word for it. Information must be verifiable with very few exceptions. Is this a flaw in Wikipedia's philosophy? Many think so, but this talk page isn't the place to try and change that.

B Corporation is not a third party to B Corporation's certification of The Reader. B Corporation is directly involved, and a core part of their entire model is to publicize their certifications. Find a real third party source, and we can go from there.

If the Magazine Innovation Center at the University of Mississippi, School of Journalism has published content on the magazine, great! That's still very obscure, compared to CJR, but it's worth considering. Husni's personal blog is something else, though. It doesn't have the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of sources. If you want to present this as an academic source, it should indicate some degree of peer-review or outside editing or fact-checking of some kind. I don't see that at all. The comments you have inserted ("The power of print has never been more evident than with The Reader Magazine") provide very little concrete information about the magazine. What is the "power of print" here? How is it evident? It reads like puff and peacockery, rather than real information. What does a neutral reader know from that quote that they didn't before?

Including obscure positive coverage to balance out negative coverage is false balance. It is not neutral to highlight positive bits just because the magazine is mostly known for something negative.

These are the underlying issues, and I don't see anything changing without addressing those. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Funding, cicrulation info

Please add the information on VEDC funding at the end of the History part and add source for the circulation figure to the infobox.

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text	Replace with
(blank)	In March 2018, Noble Media, raised $200,000 in capital from the Valley Economic Development Center (VEDC), a non-profit community funder, to grow its media assets (including The Reader Magazine).
total_circulation = 390,000	total_circulation = 390,000 (2017)

References

Reply 14-APR-2018

 Done Please note, based on how it was written in the supplied reference shown here ("To its current readership of 390,000 Californians, The Reader is an antidote to the mainstream") introduces a question as to how much of this information was written and supplied by the article's subject to B-Corporation.net, the website of the reference. The 390,000 figure was retained and the reference was appended -- but to address these concerns the POV statement inline template was added to this figure in the infobox. I welcome any information which may dissuade these concerns over B-Corporation.net as a reference.  Spintendo      18:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo thank you for implementing the edits. Well, B Corporation is a respected certification, they do check the data provided. I understand your concerns, however. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Defunct?

The "current" issue on the website is Spring 2020, and the site itself hasn't been updated since June 2021. This would indicate that the magazine is defunct. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)