Talk:Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Pathawi (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/1007135985: Former volunteer & employee of the organisation.)
Jay94103 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (while not disclosed, creating account, copying and pasting 10,000+ bytes of content, then disappearing reasonably suggests connected editing)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lorraine.meriner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco. 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:

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) 23:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon[edit]

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaid Editor[edit]

Today, Graywalls tagged this page with the suspicion that Jay94103 was an undisclosed paid editor. I am writing in response to this.

Disclosure for relevance to present conversation: I am a former employee of the Coalition on Homeless &, in fact, created this page while I was an employee back in 2007. At the time, there was no paid contribution disclosure requirement. I last worked for the Coalition in 2016. It looks like my last edit to this page was in 2010. Reviewing my own contributions ten years ago: I did a bad job.

I suspect that Jay94103 is a former Coalition on Homelessness employee, but I do not know that. The Coalition on Homelessness has—& has always had—very few employees & a large number of unpaid volunteers. It is possible that this person is or was in the latter category. I think it very likely from Jay94103's editing history that they had some relationship to the organisation at the time of editing. But I also think it unlikely that this person meets (or met) the criteria for the paid disclosure requirement.

I e-mailed the current director of the Coalition on Homelessness just under half an hour ago, & she wrote back that she did not have any knowledge of an employee editing the organisation's Wikipedia page. If this were a court, I wouldn't expect a judge to say: 'Well, they say they didn't do it, so I guess we gots to acquit.' On the other hand, I don't see what evidence there is for these edits' being paid edits other than that Jay94103 is clearly a single-purpose account belonging to a person who felt some alignment with the organisation. Plenty of editors who are enthusiastic about a cause—& who may edit from a non-NPOV—are not paid to do so.

I'd like to see this moved forward. Today is the first time that I've encountered this policy, so please forgive me if I've got the appropriate course of action wrong. It seems from WP:PAID like the steps are:

We discuss it here & see if editors can come to some resolution.
If we cannot, then Graywalls (or another interested editor) should submit a report to either Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

Does that seem correct? Pathawi (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this isn't a court. Second, The tagging on the article was not incorrect, because based on the editing pattern and circumstances, there was a reasonable cause to believe paid editing occurred, per documentation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Undisclosed_paid which states "Add this tag to articles for which there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor. When placing this tag, please also tag the article talk page with {{Connected contributor (paid)}}." Third, the solution is to eliminate all non-encyclopedic contents or even nominate the article for deletion if it turns out that the organization fails to meet WP:NORG criteria. Graywalls (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I know it's not a court: That's why I used a counterfactual conditional. My intention was to express that I did not know how the situation at that time should be resolved. It looks like the situation is resolved, which is great.

I see that you've listed me as a paid editor: I am not now, nor have I been a paid editor. I didn't mean for my disclosure comment to be misleading: I was an employee at the time that I created the article, but I created the article on my own time, & I do not think that any other member of the organisation had knowledge of my actions or would have even cared if they had known. Editing Wikipedia was in no way part of my work expectations. I did, however, have a conflict of interest as a person formally connected to the organisation.† If you feel like including me in a template on this talk page, the appropriate one would be Connected contributor.

† At the time that I created the article, the Conflict of Interest Guideline did not give clear instruction to declare a COI, but instead listed pros & cons of so doing. If I had created this page today, I certainly should be expected to handle it differently. Pathawi (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pathawi: We have some basic guidelines around WP:COI. You should disclose on your user page that you have a COI, which, if you have been in contact with the article subject, seems likely. This discussion should be continued on WP:COIN as it has been posted there. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pathawi:, if you have additional comments, please take further correspondence to COI/N discussion so that all is in one place. Graywalls (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superscript numbers in the article[edit]

Hi editors, there are numerous places in the article where a number was written in superscript above a word. Does anyone know if this was supposed to be a footnote? If so, what citation was it directed to? I removed these instances in the text but you can see its implementation in previous versions of this article. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:, I see you've been working on the article, but do you feel that this hyper local highly specialized niche trade organization meets WP:NORG and WP:ORGDEPTH and in regard to WP:AUD in particular? Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? I am considering nominating it for AfD, but I want to remove the WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE language and evaluate the sources in the article before conducting a WP:BEFORE search. If you already did BEFORE, and still don't think it's notable, then I invite you to nominate it and I'll give my thoughts there when I'm finished copyediting the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of routine coverage about them in notable newspapers primarily focused in San Francisco area, because it's a SF organizatoin.. there's also a trivial quotation in The Guardian. I'm not quite done doing WP:BEFORE search but I feel that it doesn't have quite enough WP:SIRS to satisfy ORGDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw lots of trivial coverage from the SF area, too. The group was quoted in the NYT a couple times although there isn't significant coverage there. I referenced a JSTOR source that I found in my BEFORE search which gives significant coverage to the org, but did not find anything in Google, NYT, ProQuest, Sage or Gale. This article [1] also gives significant coverage, imo. If another source is found then that would satisfy my "three sources" requirement to keep at AfD. It might also get merged with Street Sheet, their newspaper. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]