Template:Did you know nominations/Whistleblower Aid

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Nominator has been unresponsive to pings despite on-Wiki activity; article issues have remained largely unaddressed.

Whistleblower Aid

(

)

... that Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen was represented by the legal assistance organization Whistleblower Aid, a recipient of funding from the self-styled "philanthropic investment firm" Omidyar Network?

Source: "The Facebook whistleblower whose disclosures have shaken the world’s largest social network has drawn behind-the-scenes help from a big player in the online world: Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire tech critic who founded eBay."

"Omidyar’s financial support, which was previously unreported, offers one of the most striking examples yet of how Frances Haugen’s disclosures have generated enthusiasm among critics of U.S. tech giants — offering a potentially crucial boost as she takes on one of the world’s most powerful companies. This gives her an edge that many corporate whistleblowers lack as she warns lawmakers, regulators and media organizations on both sides of the Atlantic that Facebook is endangering society by putting “profits before people.”"

"Omidyar’s global philanthropic organization Luminate is handling Haugen’s press and government relations in Europe, and his foundation last year gave $150,000 to Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit organization that is providing Haugen’s legal representation and advice."

Politico

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WWJ-TV

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk) and Jaredscribe (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 04:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - ?
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Eligibility looks good - long enough and hook is sourced. The article feels a little promotional, especially the second paragraph of 'History.' I would also edit the article to make it more clear how Haugen's actions and Omidyar are related, since that's what the hook focuses on. Once those things are fixed, we should be good to go! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: any thoughts on the comments above? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll add a bit more and perhaps make a second hook. Thriley (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thriley, it's been over three weeks since your last comment without any edits to the article or posts here. I think allowing seven more days for the work to be done is reasonable. I hope to see it done; if not, the nomination may be marked for closure at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: As it has been seven days without a response or any edits to the article, the nomination is now marked for closure. If you want the nomination to continue, please comment here and address the concerns. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ll take care of this in the next few hours. My apologies for the delay. Thriley (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What about ALT1 ... that shortly after Frances Haugen took the thousands of files that would be released in the 2021 Facebook leak, she contacted Whistleblower Aid to ask for assistance? Thriley (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The issues seem to also include the article itself rather than just the hooks, so the promotion concerns mentioned above need to be addressed if they haven't already. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Narutolovehinata5, given the lack of any further editing to address the neutrality issues that were first raised on 22 April, I'd suggest that this DYK nomination be closed and archived. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ll add some additional info soon. Thriley (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The nomination has been ongoing for a while without most of the issues being addressed. The remaining issues must be addressed soon, otherwise the nomination will be closed. @Thriley: Please rectify the concerns as soon as possible. Given how long the nomination has been ongoing, another week at most is probably the most the nomination can be given, considering the circumstances. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The nominator did not respond to the above ping and given that a week has passed the nomination has now been closed. If there is a desire to have this re-opened, let me know or leave a message at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)