Talk:Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust

}}

• https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5243ee_775d3b508e0647718849be07501a70f1.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_131,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/5243ee_775d3b508e0647718849be07501a70f1.png

Skinnytony1 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Politics Project

Skinnytony1 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Paraphrasing ex staff member critical of methods at FACT

I've place this removed text here if someone can help with salvaging it, see change here

FACT has been described as using "the legal system as a political weapon"[1] and characterized, by a GOP operative, as a "one of the hackier things I ever saw...If you wanted to be treated seriously you have to do serious work. The whole thing just became a chop shop of fake ethics complaints.".[2] Matthew Whitaker Ran ‘a Chop Shop of Fake Ethics Complaints’|last=Freedlander|first=David|date=2018-11-09|work=New York Magazine - Intelligencer|access-date=2018-11-14|language=en}}</ref>

How about this R2:

The merit and political nature of FACT has been raised as a concern, echoed by a former employee labelling the complaints as "fake".

Skinnytony1 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As illuminating as it is I don't think there's any way we can salvage the "chop shop" content. It's not an opinion, it's a factual allegation presented as truth, and it hasn't been fact-checked by New York magazine. As such it's not verifiable. The "political weapon" content has a different sort of sourcing problem. First off, you should never use the weasely "has been described as" without identifying who did the describing. In this case it was apparently CNN. But the problem is that I couldn't find the CNN story as published by CNN. It's like CNN silently retracted the article. I don't know how that works, but it raises doubts about the source's reliability. On top of that the use of this quote is non-neutral cherry-picking. We shouldn't quoting the media's most inflammatory language about the subject. Our content should fairly represent the full spectrum of reliable coverage of the subject. R2 (bleep) 00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

cool, I'll keep my eye for more coverage. Skinnytony1 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)?

The infobox says 501(c)(4) but the website for the organization says - "The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization." [3] -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

good pick up. changed. Skinnytony1 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus: Can we keep the list of complaints?

Can we keep the list of complaints? Wikieditor19920 changed here it's half the story of FACT and its not synthesised any where else. How is this list different from episodes of a TV show or lists of awards for Paralympians or notable alumni or lists of communication to the International Criminal Court other lists or award lists. There was something like 58 complaints to democratic organisations and individuals on the list, all sourced, now it states there was 46 complaints to democratic organisations and individuals. So now it's been summarised to be wrong information. Also, there is potential to expand notable complaints showing how they developed. Once again as previously stated I would want to see this on an encyclopaedia. If you want I can format it into a table like this. There is precedent for lists...Where's the WP:NEGOTIATION? Skinnytony1 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that tables and long lists exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. However, that does not justify their use in every instance, and it certainly doesn’t seem appropriate here. There is a distinction between a list of episodes of a famous T.V. show, to use an example you mentioned, and a list of “complaints” by a little-known non-profit that mostly went nowhere. The subtext of including that absurd list seemed to be that the organization almost exclusively focuses on Democratic people/organizations. That is noteworthy for a self-described non-partisan organization (at least I think that’s what they call themselves), but that point can just as easily be stated directly. The full list is WP:TMI. And if my edit got the numbers wrong, I was just referring to the source. I do see that that may have only been within a certain time frame, so feel free to fix that if the number is actually wrong. However, the list is ridiculous, IMO. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say the list is ridiculous, but I agree with Wikieditor19920. Articles should be written in an encyclopedic style and are not intended to be compendia of every known tidbit of information. R2 (bleep) 07:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered responses. There is an assumption made be Wikieditor19920 that the complaints "mostly went nowhere", having a list or table can show where they went and if they went anywhere. Thus the "absurd list" has utility beyond what you say is an assumed "subtext" as propaganda to show the weight of complaints go one way or another. Also little-known TV shows have lists...but anyway happy to leave it as is. I'm finding the process (critical authoritative tone from wikiediot19920) and accusations (especially that I'm making edits not in good faith) made by Wikieditor19920 extremely unpleasant and unproductive and might step back from this. If something's not clear why not just ask in future and not jump to assuming bad faith "subtext". Skinnytony1 (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Skinnytony1: Just relax. I think overall you've done a very solid job with this article. Perhaps it was unnecessary for me to call the list ridiculous, though I think you understand my point. And I haven't accused you of bad-faith editing; it was the source that noted that most of the organization's complaints were against Dem organizations/individuals, and I assumed that was what you were trying to illustrate. Let's both assume good faith and chalk it up to a miscommunication. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)