Talk:Chicago CRED/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

WP:BUZZWORDS but no meaning

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The article refers to "social outreach" and "a different strategic approach." The article should say what "social outreach" is in this context and what the different approach is. Toddst1 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Social outreach is self-descriptive, I think. Its a different strategic approach because it is a method not ordinarily associated with traditional law enforcement methods. Happy for other editors to provide more specific clarification though if that would be an improvement. Jack4576 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no Social outreach is not self-descriptive. What is it? What services are being provided that were not otherwise provided?

Regarding the "different strategic approach," what is this new method you speak of and how is it different? All we have is WP:BUZZWORDS with no meaning. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Social outreach is synonymous with 'outreach'. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/outreach

Its not a 'new' method. Point is that its different to traditional law enforcement. Disagree that its a buzzword. Jack4576 (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Right.

Outreach is the activity of providing services to any population that might not otherwise have access to those services. Again, what services?
Different how?

You have dodged the question and have not provided any info. It appears you have no idea either, furthering my point that are useless terms. An informative, clear, and succinctly written article trumps one filled with buzzwords. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Social services that are not related to law enforcement. Different in that they are not law enforcement. Fill in the blanks. Its not that hard mate. Jack4576 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW in case your intellectual curiosity is at all genuine, feel free to have a look at how the word 'outreach' is used on this page. Jack4576 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

So you can't name the specific services or how their approach to law enforcement is different. QED. Please stop removing the maintenance templates.

I've read the article on outreach quoted it above.

What's in the article is marketing-speak and is appropriately tagged. Please rephrase with what services they are providing and how their approach is different if you wish to remove the templates or remove the sentence completely. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC 'social outreach', 'different strategic approach'

Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments7 people in discussion

RESOLVED

The dispute was resolved by a consensus rewrite of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the context of their location within this article about a local NGO, are the above phrases appropriate or insufficiently precise? If they could be improved, what wording ought be preferred? Jack4576 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Will re-edit piece based on consensus reached here Toddst1, hope that's fine with you. Jack4576 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What consensus? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good spot to request WP:3O. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait, that is what the RFC is for. Carry on. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Both phrases are fuzzy and sound like they're from the organization's publicist. I don't know what they mean, really. Just sounds like fluff. Definitely we should reword. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what "The organisation engages with volunteers working on community violence intervention" means, either, but the source provided doesn't include the word "volunteers". Valereee (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Do you have an alternative preferred wording? Jack4576 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here knows what the heck these terms are supposed to mean. @Valereee: is 100% right that they sound like it is a vacuous phrases from the org's publicist. Nobody here can reword these phrases to something meaningful so they should be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I am aware of your opinion, the purpose of this RfC is to obtain a third opinion. Jack4576 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that "social outreach" is the better of the two options, but they both seem to be a bit promotional in their roots. Probably best to look for a more neutral way to phrase it, maybe just "outreach"? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the article now that editors consider a rewrite, per WP:TNT. Sometimes the best way to fix problems are to just start over. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How is the word ‘social’ promotional or value-laden? Jack4576 (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not the word social, it's phrases like "social outreach". It sounds like what a publicist writes. It doesn't tell the reader anything about the article subject. Valereee (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Invading is right, this article feels like it was written backwards. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've rewritten from the two best sources. See what you think, let's discuss. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Really good rewrite, thank you Jack4576 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added the content based on the WAPO interview, I think its quite significant that the organisation has had a opera written based on it after interviews from Anna Deavere Smith Jack4576 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Meh, it didn't have an opera written about it. She used interviews with members for research in a piece about gun violence in Chicago. That really doesn't provide the reader with any information about the organization, it's just trivia. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The Libretto was about the organisation. Members of the organisation were portrayed on stage, including Arne Duncan. This is noted in the Tribune review Jack4576 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The phrase means precisely NOTHING. Zilch. Zero. Because every bloody organisation has some sort of strategy, and each strategy can be safely claimed to be somewhat different than others. This sentence has zero informational value for the reader – it's puffery plain and simple.

Anyway, much of this article is puffery/marketing pretending to be information; an infomercial shaped into a Wikipedia article: "The organisation was featured in the media...", "The organisation has a strategic approach...", "The organisation was supported by famous Mr X", "The organisation involves volunteers...", etc. etc. I have been battling this exact sort of puffery articles about non-notable businesses for quite a few years now: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], etc, etc.

This one is just another local organisation that has has managed to get a few articles out to the media (as pretty much every nonprofit does at one point) and has been referred to somewhere in recent town hall elections somewhere in the US. Hence my nomination. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Civility please.

The article has been rewritten, what do you think of it now ? Jack4576 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If that's supposed to be notable, then we're lowering the NORG threshold so low that me alone, I'm able to add at least three dozen of local nonprofit organisations across Europe and the world, all of which have some sort of strategy, volunteers, projects, and at least a similar number of media mentions as this one.

Because EVERY nonprofit tries to generate buzz arounds its activities; otherwise it gets no grants and donations. And, obviously, the generated buzz does not equal to encyclopaedic notability.

Actually, the notability bar on Wikipedia is fairly high – so high that a number of editors wanted to delete an article for a USD 5-billion Nasdaq-listed global corporation with offices in 80+ countries as failing Wikipedia notability standards for organisations[11].

I'm of a firm opinion that an organisation with activities on such a small scale as CRED is definitely, positively non-notable, even if a handful of reliable sources confirm that it exists. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You're aware this organisation had an opera written about it by Anna Deavere Smith, right ? Jack4576 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So what? Some of the organisations I could write about have created videos and songs with famous actors/singers (which were aired on local TV); others had very famous actors and sportspeople as their ambassadors. That's exactly what nonprofits do all the time, while nearly every celebrity tries their best to be publicly associated with some noble cause. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, money can buy notoriety. Life ain't fair. Jack4576 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I'm now working for a small (non-notable) charity on a large public event that will be covered by a major European title as well as several English and French-language titles. Why can I be sure? Because that's how things work. Media titles have a fixed price list, there's a professional PR agency in the background, and the event is backed by certain commercial/political interests (apart from being socially relevant of course).

But I'm also a long-time Wikipedian and I will not stick this charity onto Wikipedia, despite a sudden media coverage and despite the forthcoming words of support from certain very visible politicians...

Similarly here: I believe I can smell informercials from a mile apart, and the sudden visibility of CRED during a mayoral race is a HUGE red light. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You know what? That's a really good reason why Wikipedia's SIGCOV guideline isn't fit for purpose.

Building an encyclopedia by exclusive reference to what is significantly covered in the media, is a recipe for commercial nonsense.

Sadly, it doesn't look like the consensus on SIGCOV is going to change anytime soon. There are so many better alternatives, but this is crappy guideline we're stuck with. Jack4576 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.