Talk:Multiple Sclerosis Foundation

COI Edits

This is regarding this series of edits by Tony at MS Focus, who has declared a conflict of interest. While some of the updates to routine information were appropriate, much of the info added was too promotional. As a starting point, the extensive list of "MS Focus' most popular programs and services" should be supported by secondary sources to establish significance, and should be described in plain language without the use of peacock words or buzzwords. Without those sources this is too much like a brochure. Wikipedia isn't a directory, and as an encyclopedia article, this page should not be redundant with the organization's own website.

There were also a large number of formatting problems. By themselves these wouldn't be a big deal, but it does make it much harder to fix other issues. When editing, compare changes made to other articles, and use the preview button. Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Help:Referencing for beginners might be helpful, also. Grayfell (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I hope I'm replying correctly. In the current state of the page, the "Programs and Services" section is already there. It is just a list using old names or referencing programs we do not still operate. I was simply briefly elaborating on what each one was and fixing the wording of the titles. If the conflict there comes from the use of "most popular" or other language that I used, I will correct that. Or, is the actual information a problem? I tried to explain each one as concisely as possible. Also, the information here does not have secondary sources. It is simply information about my organization, directly from the organization. Unlike the recent edit about the BBB, which required a citation, the edits I'm proposing are just facts about the organization. So, I'm not sure where/how secondary sources should be involved. Tony at MS Focus (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tony at MS Focus: Hello. This is the correct way to reply. I've "pinged" you to notify you that you have a response here. You don't have to do the same, though, as I now keep this page on my watchlist (Help:Watchlist).

The problem is not the accuracy of the info, but the level of detail. This is a volunteer effort and we're here to build an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so we mainly use secondary sources to build articles. Your organization's own website can be used for filling in non-controversial, routine details, but extensive listings, phone numbers, services provided, etc. need context which can only be provided by neutral sources. If that material was in a for-profit organization's article, it would be seen as spam and deleted on sight. In fact, the article itself likely would've already been deleted, and strictly speaking, non-profits follow the same WP:ORG guidelines.

If there are no independent sources, it's not clear how much, if any of this, belongs. As an editor who was specifically tasked with expanding this article by the organization itself, are you in a position to fairly judge that? Outside sources are the solution to that problem, as frustrating as that might be. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that even the Talk page entries read as publicity for MS Focus. The fact that the only citation in the article is from an impartial organization that rates the MS Foundation as not having provided any input, tells it all. This type of behavior is in my experience highly correlated with marketing organizations that exploit charity status to convince donors to give, but whose goal is solely to enrich top management. I think we should erase the content below this line.--Gciriani (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Gciriani, that is an awful assumption to make without knowing anything about an organization.

What I had written here were my proposed changes to the page that had been removed after I posted them. I did not know about the strict guidelines that Wikipedia has for edits and content creation. Nor did I know about the admin community and the talk pages. As I have repeatedly stated, I did not intend for my changes to be promotional. I was simply trying to update this page with content that is current and reflective of a re-branding we have gone through. I wanted the page to be informative, since that is often how I personally use Wikipedia, to gather info or to learn about something. With the explanations from other admin, and reviewing the pages for other and similar charities, I see how my proposed changes came across as inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Also of note, Gciriani, the cited source you used as an example to attack my organization is something we are currently working with the BBB to try and correct, since it was due to a clerical error dealing with our contact information. So, no, that citation does not tell all. Tony at MS Focus (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Tony, there was no attack on the organization; only the quote by the BBB was presented.--Gciriani (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In a public forum, you looked at a brief source, on a subject you are not informed on, and used that information to make completely unfounded and negative assumptions and insinuations about an organization you know very little about. All completely unprovoked.

I have been up front about every change I have attempted to make here and have shown a complete willingness to ask for assistance and direction.

You offered nothing in the way of assistance or direction. Again, your comment was entirely unprovoked. You simply assumed the worst. You made no attempt to communicate directly with me and seemed to ignore any and all context for the situation. Now, I will admit, using the word "attack" might be too harsh, but, at best, your comment is completely inappropriate. Tony at MS Focus (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the /Financial-Statements published by the MSFoundation in its newly redesigned website, and I suspect the BBB will have a hard time giving the foundation the green light as a sound charity. For one thing the pie chart is deceptive, which already sounds an alarm; the Co-executive Director has been a CPA since 1977, and I doubt he would make a mistake like that unintentionally.--Gciriani (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are taking few or no facts and are making sweeping negative assumptions.

First, the chart you reference is obviously for illustrative purposes. Also, do you honestly think that our co-executive director had a direct hand in creating that chart? He did not. And it is completely unacceptable that you would insinuate anyone is taking part in rampant deception and wrongdoing without a shred of proof.

Second, we are 100% transparent with our financial records. They are even on the page you visited. Over the last few years, 60-75% of our budget has gone directly to our program services, around 8% has gone to admin costs, and 15-30% goes toward fundraising efforts. All of which would reflect the proportional break down of the chart you pointed out. You can see that breakdown, based on 2015 financials, here.

I don't know why you are so bent on trying to de-legitimize or find some non-existent wrongdoing here. Please stop making baseless assumptions and insinuations. Tony at MS Focus (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSED UPDATES

I have taken out the majority of my earlier content changes, removed any mention of the mission statement, and simply updated the current content with the organization's name change.

Is this content, in it's current form, acceptable to use as an edit to the page?

Tony at MS Focus (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

MS Focus: The Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, often referred to as The Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, but known more commonly as MS Focus, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization benefiting people with multiple sclerosis and their families. The Foundation was established in 1986, and operates out of its headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

MS Focus' resources assist people who have MS, their families and caregivers, regional support groups, and healthcare professionals. Access to programs and services is available through the web site or a helpline staffed by caseworkers and peer counselors.

All of MS Focus' services, as well as information, literature, and subscriptions to publications are free. MS Focus neither sells memberships nor requires participation in fund-raising activities by individuals or support groups.

According to the Better Business Bureau, the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation did not disclose accountability information, and therefore the BBB could not determine if the charity adheres to its Standards for Charity Accountability.

• In this case, it's too suggestive of an advertised business profile, especially considering articles here nearly never have a "mission statement" given it would closely mirror what their own website says. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed reference to the mission statement. Tony at MS Focus (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made most of the suggested changes. "Often referred to" and "known more commonly" doesn't seem appropriate, since there are no sources in the article using either of those names. Please find independent sources soon. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be spending the next several days researching secondary sources about the organization, so any further updates are appropriate and follow all guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony at MS Focus (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 Re-branding

To coincide with their 30th anniversary, the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation has launched a new website to make access to information and services easier. The new MS Focus website includes some new programs that are available online for the first time, such as the Emergency Assistance Program to help MS patients keep their homes if rent or utilities fall behind; or the Health Care Assistance Grant, to help those who are uninsured afford specialized MS care.

They have also introduced a new design to their quarterly publication, MS Focus Magazine, which is dedicated to common challenges, solutions, and stories of the MS community.

The info here is very close to the wording used in the source article. Is it better/appropriate to use their wording verbatim or to reword the info here? Tony at MS Focus (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It is, in general, much better to completely reword, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. In this case, that source is still very weak, since it clearly indicates that it's derived from a press release. Churnalism isn't independent, even when it's superficially harmless. The reliability of Multiple Sclerosis News Today would have to be established, also. Mentioning the organization's quarterly publication would be one thing, but words like "introduced", "dedicated", "solutions" etc. are peacock words which do not belong in a neutral encyclopedia at all. Please keep looking. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

MS Focus Radio

In 2014, MS Focus launched MS Focus Radio, the first online radio station for the MS community.

The station operates 24/7 and will focus on motivation, education, and empowerment for people affected by the disease. The programming for the station will not only include original content produced by the MSF, but also audio versions of relevant books and magazine articles, as well as inspirational music. It is also available as an app for Android and iOS devices.

I don't think this info requires it's own heading, but since the radio station is still the only radio station 100% dedicated to the MS community, it is a very noteworthy aspect of the organization. The majority of this is taken directly from the cited source, but can absolutely be edited to meet publication standards. Tony at MS Focus (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Per above, sources derived entirely from press releases should be treated the same as any other form of public relations. We use independent sources to determine what is very noteworthy. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, have you tried to listen to the radio? I'm not able to hear anything; all there is in its webpages is about 2014 and 2015. To try to listen one has to subscribe and enter his/her own contact details' however, after having done so, there is no broadcast coming out of it. So all it has done in my case was to harvest contact information. Therefore the first two paragraphs of this tall section do not sound true.--Gciriani (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

References