Talk:Canada's National Observer

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Observer (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307074824/http://canadalandshow.com/article/global-news-disappeared-koch-brothers-expos%C3%A9 to http://canadalandshow.com/article/global-news-disappeared-koch-brothers-expos%C3%A9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

18 recent changes

Oceanflynn made 18 edits in a row with edit summaries "expanding" | "ref details" | "The price of oil: ce" | "Notes" | "Funding: ce" | "Reviews: copyedit" | "ce" and the like. In order to show the net effect I reverted them all so that one can see the diff here. Some of Financial Post mention of Tides (including Solomon's family relationship) was removed from the article and placed in a footnote, cite [2] was a dead link, cite [3] (to the Star) was to an article that didn't even mention National Observer, cite [4] was apparently the basis for saying "one-time" but it was about 2015 and we have no way to know whether there were other times since then, cite [12] is a direct quote which looks like something from Al Jazeera but in fact it's to nationalobserver.com, and on it goes. I oppose Oceanflynn's changes, but perhaps other editors will chip in and we can see whether anything in them has consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for removal of maintenance template on paid users

According to the Who Wrote app, User:174.7.117.152 talk made 68 edits to this page on December 20, 2020. This user is Linda Solomon—the founder and director of the National Observer. Solomon said that statements in the article were "distorted and incomplete" and she corrected them.

I understand that for new editors, the wisdom and clarity of Wikipedia protocols may not always be apparent. But strict application of the protocols in place protect the reliability of Wikipedia and the reputations of the many volunteer Wikipedia editors who devote so much time and energy to this amazing project. Many new editors make mistakes. Solomon may not have been aware that because of Conflict of Interest concerns, she should use the article's talk page to suggest changes.

On December 20, Wikipedia administrator, Ifnord|talk, rightfully added the maintenance template currently in place: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." User:Ifnord contacted Solomon and explained Wikipedia protocols regarding conflict of interest guideline and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

On December 22, Solomon responded to User:Ifnord's explaining that she was not a "paid" contributor The COI, however, is still a concern.

I suggest that the edits made by Solomon, regardless of their factual accuracy, be moved to the talk page where individual editors can use them as they wish. User:174.7.117.152 Linda Solomon ( talk )

As one of the many volunteer editors, I enjoyed working on this article—as of January 12, 2020, according to the Who Wrote app, I had made 122 edits. Unfortunately for us, the maintenance template does not name a particular editor, so we are all swept with the same broad brushstroke of potentially being "the" paid editor. User:Ilford what are your thoughts? How can we work towards removing the template? Thank youOceanflynn (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Just to be clear, I am not an administrator. But, someone who is a senior member of a media organization (and paid by them) who then edits an article about that organization is going to be considered a paid editor. And the COI is obvious. I am not bonded at all to the subject or the article; I recommend the tag remain until the consensus of other editors is that the COI editing has been either validated or removed. Ifnord (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am beginning by revisiting each of Solomon-Wood's edits one-by-one:

#1 Re-inserted paragraph deleted by User:174.7.117.152 on at 04:58, December 20, 2020 by 174.7.117.152 and moved it to a new section entitled "Funding issues" at the bottom of the page with this added at the top of the section This section has been challenged for its veracity by a paid editor. See the talk page.

In 1992, Solomon's wife, Carol Newell, established the Endswell Foundation which became Tides Canada in 2010. Both charities have donated over a hundred million dollars to hundreds of organizations in the "social and environmental sector", including the National Observer. One of their highest profile Tides Canada initiative projects was the 2000 Rainforest Solutions Project, a collaboration of the Sierra Club BC, ForestEthics Solutions and Greenpeace. On January 1, 2016, the Observer published the first in a special series of articles on the Great Bear Rainforest in partnership with Tides Canada, Teck, and Vancity. Solomon Wood has been criticized for her ties to her brother, and by extension, Tides Canada. Canadaland's Jesse Brown questioned how funding from philanthropists influences the Observer s journalistic objectivity.

In the edit summary I explained that it had been re-inserted temporarily and called for editors to revisit the content on the talk page. Is this reasonable and appropriate? ( talk ) (talk) (talk) I have no problem with the problematic edits being removed by other volunteer editors.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

#2 This was added by User:174.7.117.152 on 22 December 2020 1:13 PM with the summary edit: →‎History: I have corrected inaccuracies and p talk

"According to CTV News, National Observer became part of The Trust Project in March of 2020. "The incoming news partners extend the Trust Project’s reach in the United States, Canada, Spain and Hong Kong, making its transparency standard, the Trust Indicators, available on more than 200 news sites to hundreds of millions of people a month.

The Trust Project operates as a consortium of top news companies led by founder and award-winning journalist Sally Lehrman.

To conform with The Trust Project's indicators and standards, National Observer released its funding history on its about page in 2019, and stated that it is funded half through reader subscriptions and half through donations and collaborations with foundations including BC Real Estate Foundation, the Ivey Foundation, the Trottier Foundation, Canadian Community Foundations, the Vancouver Foundation, the Donner Foundation, Vancity Credit Union, Teck Mining Company, Tides Foundation, the Catherine Donnelly Foundation, the Gordon Foundation and the Echo Foundation.

"We collaborate with a number of foundations to produce in-depth coverage of journalism that we could not afford to do otherwise," the site states."

I removed it temporarily. It can be rewritten and added to the page with complete RS.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

#3 This was added by User:174.7.117.152:

"Her mother is the photographer Rosalind Fox Solomon. According to the New Yorker, Rosalind Fox Solomon (1930-), an American artist based in New York City, is celebrated for her portraits and for her connection to human suffering, ritual, survival, and struggle. "Hers is a bold, humanistic and highly personal view of the world, deftly executed in square format using black-and-white film," according to an article in the New York Times."

I removed it temporarily and another editor, who is not paid or in a conflict of interest could add this with RS is deemed appropriate.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

#4 I reverted the content in the section on Mike De Souza as User:174.7.117.152 had inadvertently removed all the wikilinks and RS.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have made enough changes regarding the edits by User:174.7.117.152. There may now be erroneous statements that need to be dealt with. There are a few edits amounting to 2% of the page (according to the Who Wrote That app) of uncontroversial edits still associated with user:174.7.117.152 . I removed the paid editor template which can be re-inserted if deemed necessary.Oceanflynn (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)