Talk:ResearchED

Edit request on 02 Jan 2021

Hi, I hope someone can help me. I run researchED, the organisation listed in this article. Unfortunately this article appears to have been written by a very hostile author with intent to defame the organisation by linking it to racism, which we vehemently deny. The negative viewpoints that this article platforms are held by a very small minority of people and are completely unrepresentative of the good work the we do.

In its short word count it focuses on manufactured controversies by a couple of its most vocal detractors.

This leads to an overwhelming impression that the organisation is racist, by error and by misleading emphasis. I would strongly request that this page be edited to remove these ghastly allegations and emphases.

(In advance, may I apologise for my lack of editing skills, so if this request is improperly formatted I am sorry for the inconvenience this may cause.)

1. Line one 'and, since 2017, a Private Limited Company),[1]' is an odd fact to be made at the beginning. The intent is clearly to convey that the organisation is in some way a profit making vehicle, when in fact it barely breaks even, has no employees, no capital, and no profit. We run conferences for teachers that are completely run by volunteers. Its reputation has been built on this concept, and because of it, people freely contribute to it. I'm the founder and owner and even I don't receive a salary. Please can this part be deleted, or relocated elsewhere in the piece to reflect its relevance.

2. 'Speakers have included Andrew Sabisky...' We have had over 1000 speakers internationally over the years, talking (for free) about education. Last year Mr Sabisky was involved in a controversy about inflammatory views he holds, which were not part of his talk with us, and occurred long after speaking for us. This is an attempt to link us with these inflammatory views, and by featuring this one speaker so prominently in such a short list it obviously has this intent- with a link, of course. Please may this list of speakers be removed 81.131.121.32 (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)entirely, or edited to remove this one speaker.

3. 'According to Bennett, ResearchED came about 'following a chance discussion is an attempt to suggest that this is not in fact how the organisation came about, by implication. It was how the organisation came about, and this language and rhetoric is hostile.

4. '...with Sam Freedman (former advisor to the Secretary of State for Education and later Director of Research and Impact at Teach First)' is an attempt to draw out the inference that researchED was created at the suggestion of a government operative, by emphasising his career. Please remove this unusual emphasis; retain the link to the original story where this is discussed by all means, whiz provides sufficient background.

5. 'Criticisms'. Why does such a short piece have such a disproportionately long entry on criticisms? This is the most hostile part of the edit, and presumably why the listing was created. Over the last seven years we have held scores of conferences around the world, with many thousands of attendees. We have an enormous community of supporters internationally. Of course, with prominence comes criticism, justified or not, but to feature these very, very few critics in such a prominent way suggests an extraordinary belligerence.

In short, this entire listing for researchED has been created in an attempt to defame the organisation, and is clearly the work of a hostile author.

6. As to the content of these criticisms, they are unfounded and entirely based on opinion. researchED, and I, absolutely reject racism in all its forms. We reject allegations of 'astroturfing' in all of its forms. Some of our opponents use any slur or social media tactic to damage our good name, acquired over the years. Citing one terrible opinion-based paper, and blog posts by our few opponents, is a dreadful way to represent what has been an extremely well-received and popular organisation. Please can this section be removed in its entirety, as it misrepresents what we do in a horrific way. Wikipedia has enormous legitimacy and reach internationally, and I am horrified if this is what people see when they want to find out more about us.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this. If I can assist in any way please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Tom Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.121.32 (talk • contribs)

@81.131.121.32: Hi Tom, thanks for your message and your patience. I agree with you that the article is not written neutrally and needs work. I'm not familiar with the organization, but I'll do some research online and try to improve the article. It would help if you could find independent sources about ResearchED that could be used to support additions to the article, to balance out the current focus on criticism. If you know of any, please do post links to them. Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed several of the points you've mentioned. I think the description of Sam Freedman's career seems fine; it closely follows what the source says.

For the list of speakers in the lead, I suggest limiting it to people who have Wikipedia articles (out of the current list, that would just be Daniel T. Willingham, Daisy Christodoulou, and Nick Gibb). Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that ResearchED and Wikipedia have something in common. They both believe in the importance of credible evidence. With that in mind, I have made a few changes. Please let me know if you take exception to any, or have suggestions. John NH (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)