Talk:WhoWhatWhy

Tags

Stumbled on this article, which has multiple issues per tag, especially notability. I'd nominate for deletion, but let's see if it can be fixed first. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be fixed; it may need to be merged into Russ Baker. I started the article after seeing the illustrious names on the Editorial Advisory Council, assuming that there must be enough material out there to justify an article. But bizarrely - to the point where I wonder if the people on this Council are actually aware of being on it! - there seems to be almost zero coverage. Perhaps someone else could have a go at searching, because it seems a bit odd, given Baker's background and that Council. Podiaebba (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's listed by Project Censored as one of two dozen Independent News Links; for me that's enough, but I know others may not agree. I would also point out that I do think that covering news sources is one of the more useful things Wikipedia does, because when searching for info about news sources it gets tangled up with endless mentions of or copies of info from the news source. So even when there isn't that much to say, putting all that there is to say in one place is a useful service to readers. (In the absence of that, they're likely to rely entirely on what the source says about itself, which isn't better.) Podiaebba (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You've done all you can with this, but I'm afraid the article still doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. I don't think Project Censored is enough, and the other mentions are incidental or non-notable. Would you be OK with merger? Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think at this point the sum total of what is there is useful as a standalone article, and merging it into Russ Baker will either unbalance that article or lead to a loss of information. As I said above, I think these kinds of articles can be very useful. Podiaebba (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First, an observation that WP:N is a guideline (as distinct from policy), with the standard caveat about editor discretion, and its primary criterion is another guideline, WP:RS. That said, WP:N is the primary criterion for determining whether a topic is encyclopedia-worthy as a standalone article.

When we look at a news organization in general (NBC, NYT, etc.) we are much more likely to find it cited as a source when a story is picked up, rather than actually discussed as such in an article about the organization. Tabloid and fringeish media outlets are more likely to have an article written about them and less likely to have articles citing them. This observation should temper our expectations when we look for RS.

WhoWhatWhy’s stories are often picked up. A few examples among a great many:

• The Hollywood Reporter linked to WhoWhatWhy's investigation of Michael Hastings' car crash footage (July 26, 2013, last link on page).
• The Nation columnist Greg Mitchell (formerly Editor and Publisher) recommended one of WhoWhatWhy’s articles. (Well, that's in a blog, so doubtless stalwarts will cavil.)
• WhoWhatWhy is frequently mentioned in El Pais, Spain’s top newspaper, e.g. on 20 February 2012 "Lo recomienda la web WhoWhatWhy, que se define practicante del periodismo forense: pensando fuerte, cavando profundo" ("He [Manolis Glezos] recommends the Web WhoWhatWhy, definitive forensic practitioner of journalism: strong thinking, digging deep").
• On August 16, the acclaimed magazine Mother Jones credited WhoWhatWhy with debunking the “unauthorized cremation” story about the body of investigative journalist Michael Hastings--and noted that even the quality British paper, The Independent, published the false report.
• NBC News investigative reporter Bill Dedman periodically features WhoWhatWhy on his list of recommended sites, e.g. on August 16.
• On September 4, the Prosecutor cited three WhoWhatWhy articles in a court hearing for hacktivist journalist Barrett Brown. On September 7 the article “The FBI’s Summer Reading List” cites this court document and salutes the feds’ “great taste in journalism.”
• DailyTekk singled WhoWhatWhy out as one of the “100 most interesting websites of the year,” and as one of its top five news sites.
• The National Security Archive at George Washington University praises WhoWhatWhy: “WhoWhatWhy does an excellent job breaking down Schmidle’s sourcing [in a New Yorker article] and finds it sketchy, to say the least.”
• WhoWhatWhy is frequently cited or linked to by respected nonprofits and institutes, e.g. the Maynard Institute.
• Former CBS News correspondent and author Tom Fenton cites WhoWhatWhy’s foreign coverage on numerous occasions in his Global Post column. Examples here: “as pointed out by Russ Baker, whose web site is sharply critical of American media coverage, reporters should be telling us more about their usually anonymous sources inside Syria”; and here: here: “We cannot be certain the story is not true. Horrible incidents of rape are common in all wars. But so far no one has produced convincing evidence of a government ordered campaign of mass rape in Libya. Russ Baker's excellent analysis gives a detailed investigation of the Viagra/rape story.”
• Acclaimed journalist Glenn Greenwald praised WhoWhatWhy’s coverage in his column in the UK’s Guardian.

Bn (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a lot. I'd be happier if these weren't incidental mentions. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As to quantity, this is scratching the surface. As to getting more than "incidental" mentions, I can only say again that for even an undoubtedly notable news organization such as the Washington Post we mostly find RS citing it as a source when a story is picked up, and very rarely discussed as such in an article, chapter, or book that is explicitly about the organization. Maybe we can find WhoWhatWhy mentioned something about investigative journalism, but that again is apt to be a mention inter alia. An adversarial piece by or fostered by some entity whose activities and interests WhoWhatWhy has too frequently exposed would also count for notability.

Bn (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Absent further objection, I'm removing the notability tag. Bn (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I object and have restored the notability tag. I agree with Coretheapple. None of the cited sources or the ones linked to by Bn come close to satisfying the relevant criteria, as they are contain trivial (if any) coverage. Bn's counterargument about news organizations not receiving their own coverage is simply false. There are lots and lots and lots of independent articles about the Washington Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons to the NYT and Washington Post are inappropriate. This is a news organization. It is more significant and more noteworthy than many a newspaper, such as the Polk County Democrat or the [Flambeau], which appear to have article status primarily because of the notability of their category. An appropriate comparison might be to other entities in the other categories listed at the bottom. I'll contact people there and ask if they can point to articles or book sections about them. Founded 2006, 8 years.

Bn (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha, you're the one who brought up the Washington Post, not me! In any case, I see several problems with your analysis:

• Traditional print media are analyzed under a separate guideline from web-based media (WP:NMEDIA vs WP:WEB).
• Unlike WhoWhatWhy, both the Polk County Democrat and the Florida Flambeau have been the subjects of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. (E.g., Democrat: [1]; Flambeau: [2], [3].)
• Notability isn't based on the presence or absence of other WP articles. If the Democrat and the Flambeau didn't meet WP:NMEDIA then they would need to be deleted as well.
• The age of a website has nothing to do with notability. If it did we'd have all kinds of weird stuff getting articles.

Finally, if you want to prevent the article from being deleted you should post your arguments at WP:Articles for deletion/WhoWhatWhy, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Restructured

The article has been restructured, with new sections and additional content, including additional references for notability. An article in a RS magazine about WhoWhatWhy and its coverage of a story with regional and national significance will appear in January. For competitive reasons, the magazine has requested that details be held until publication. Bn (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I learned about the magazine article by contacting Russ Baker and asking about RS discussions of WhoWhatWhy. I have no special connection or affiliation with the organization, no CoI. Bn (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This article has serious problems, even worse than before. The addition of numerous primary sources and non-independent sources smacks of bombardment and gives the article an overall promotional feel. It's also extremely disjointed, with little non-noteworthy tidbits all thrown in a pile. I'm adding primary sources and cleanup tags accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Following your recommendation above, I am responding at WP:Articles for deletion/WhoWhatWhy. To anchor my response at that location, I am taking the liberty of copying your comment from here to there. Bn (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And ... at your request, the response is returned here.Bn (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(1) You are invoking the letter of the guidelines while violating their spirit and underlying principles . The stated purpose of WP:PSTS is "to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources ... [and] original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". And farther on "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

All of the references cited comply with this guidance.

(2) Your sense of the distinction between primary and secondary sources is incorrect.

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."

None of the quotations and paraphrases in this article fit this definition.

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

The statements quoted and paraphrased were made by people expressing their own evaluation of WhoWhatWhy and its news coverage. These people are not witnesses of the reporters and editors as they investigated a story, researched its background and contradictions, interviewed people, wrote and edited the story for production. They fit the definition of secondary sources.

(3) The addition of more independent RS references follows a recommendation given in WP:ORG. All the specialized notability guidelines (people, organizations & companies, music, web) have particular provisions that are not found in the main notability guideline. In each case, these extensions reflect essential characteristics of the given subject matter domain, and those peculiarities are the reason the specialized notability guidelines exist. WP:ORG recognizes that some organizations are notable despite there not being extensive discussion of them as such in any one place. That is why it says under Primary criteria/Depth of coverage "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I mentioned this earlier.

Bn (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Fleischman (whom I have encountered in other articles and have rarely agreed with) that the edits have lengthened the article while actually exacerbating its problems, especially concerning synthesis, trivial and unencyclopedic details, use of sources associated with the subject and a generally promotional and puffy tone. If this article is kept it warrants an overhaul. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Significant/trivial coverage, substantial/multiple coverage, WP:OR, WP:PSTS

Discussion relocated here from the AFD page, where I have been told extended discussion is inappropriate.

Cullen328 said that the references were adequate for notability.
DrFleischman asked "which specific references? Beware that there may have been some bombardment going on."
bn asked for advice: "Please suggest a way of complying with Primary criteria/Depth of coverage 'If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability' that does not appear to you to be bombardment."
DrFleischman replied "I think anyone reviewing that page will understand you're misconstruing that sentence and ignoring the rest of the guideline."

In this, DrFleischman, you are mistaken. First, the language of the primary criteria is quite clear: An organization is notable if there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Perhaps you are failing to distinguish between significant coverage and substantial depth of coverage. Significant coverage contrasts with trivial coverage. There is an enumeration of 11 examples of trivial or incidental coverage that makes quite clear what is meant. A lack of substantial depth of coverage in any single source does not make the coverage in those sources trivial, and none of the cited sources gives trivial or incidental coverage, except possibly those in the "Wider Circulation" section.

Secondly, you are wrong to say that I am misconstruing the sentence "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Its meaning is unequivocal. Like it or not (and it is clear that you do not like it), (a) an organization can be notable even if none of the sources provides substantial depth of coverage, and (b) to show notability in such a case, multiple independent sources must be cited.

But I, too, agree that in the effort to demonstrate that many reliable independent sources provide non-trivial coverage of WhoWhatWhy I have included too many such sources in the article. I have now removed the entire "Wider Circulation" section. These are the weakest sources.
Bn (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with him that the coverage is not sufficient per notability. That was my impression when I stumbled on this article a while back and still is. Coretheapple (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Per which notability guideline? WP:NOTE or WP:ORG? Bn (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Again on the AFD page, Coretheapple said "The article has been padded with primary source material and original research".

Please specify the original research so that I can take it out or fix it. I don't see it.

Please specify what you consider primary source material. Absent a clear case, I believe that

(1) You are invoking the letter of the guidelines while violating their spirit and underlying principles .

(2) Your sense of the distinction between primary and secondary sources is incorrect.

A more complete statement of these two points is in my reply under "Restructured", above. In the interest of space it's not repeated in full here.

Bn (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it and I've removed it and the relevant tag. The article still is problematic as specified. I would propose to merge this with Russ Baker but the latter article also has issues, so I hesitate. Coretheapple (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Cutdown

I've cut the article down substantially to address various sourcing and promotion-related issues. I still believe the subject is non-notable and and the article doesn't comply with our policy on original research ("Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."), but at least it appears compliant with WP:NOT and WP:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger? But to where? Russ Baker] is such a mess that maybe it should be merged here. Coretheapple (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all OR. There's nothing to merge. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:@Coretheapple: Please see merge proposal in Talk:Russ Baker. - Location (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that, and no one seems to be objecting. I'll let this lie for another week or so, and if no one objects let's merge it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I too think this article is non notable. The folks mentioned in this article, "Robert Dreyfuss, Daniel Ellsberg, Morton Mintz, Sydney Schanberg, David Talbot and Wendell Potter." are notable but they don't actually write for the site and the only evidence I can find that they are actually involved in the site are from the whowhatwhy.com site itself. If "whowhatwhy.com" the site itself was notable you'd think there would be a secondary source somewhere talking about how it is an top upcoming news website. Russ Baker himself has had a book and has appeared on shows so is notable, we could just mention on his wiki article he also has his own website. Popish Plot (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In light of this discussion and the absence of objection, it seems that this should be moved. I'll see if I can figure out how to do that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Help Needed

See Talk:Russ_Baker#NPOV_Help_Needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)