Talk:Shuttleworth Foundation

NPOV tag

I'm going to remove the tag because whoever tagged the article didn't say why they did so here, rendering it useless. Theshibboleth 18:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What's useless is to remove an NPOV tag without a good reason (the article does have severe NPOV issues). Please don't do that again. You need to read an article and then conclude that the NPOV tag shouldn't be there. Just because whoever added it didn't write down a reason doesn't mean that it's good practice to just plain remove it. —msikma (user, talk) 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite required

This article needs to be rewritten. It seems like an advertisement at this point, and I don't think that simply patching it up is going to help it very easily. The new version will first have to assert notability, then go on to explain the circumstances under which the foundation was created and the events leading up to that point, as well as a history of its existence, and then state some information on the things the foundation does. —msikma (user, talk) 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the rewrite accomplishes most of this (not all, it could still be improved, I'm keeping a note of that)80.187.201.11 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Restore content deleted as non-notable

This page contained a full list of Shuttleworth Foundation fellows. This list was deleted as "non-notable people".

Notability guidelines in Wikipedia apply to pages, but not to the content within them. (Notability guidelines can also apply to the content of lists, but this is for cases where the page *is* a list – this is not one of those cases.)

I've raised this concern on the editor's talk page. I'm leaving a note here as well. I have conflict of interest, but if there's no response here I plan to revert this deletion one week from now. I hope that's okay.

Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Madeleine, thanks for raising the discussion here. While you are correct about WP:NNC, it's also worth pointing out that lists are noted as an exception to this and WP:LISTN talks about whether a group or set of things (or in this case people) is notable enough for a stand alone list, or whether lists should be limited only to notable people.

In this case, I would argue that it has not been demonstrated that being a fellow of this foundation has been demonstrated in and of itself has been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. that the group is notable), and so simply copying the names of everyone who has been a fellow from the foundation's website (which is where nearly all names were sourced from) verges on promotional.

One option would be to do what many articles do which is have a list of "notable" fellows, and then list those people who have been fellows who are otherwise notable enough for a wikipedia article. This is the most common practice I've seen on wikipedia. However, this article already names some notable fellows in the lead so that would be duplicating that (I'd be happy with moving those names from the lead to a list of notable fellows later in the article - I'm not sure they belong in the lead anyway). It would be good to hear what other independent editors think. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Melcous, WP:LISTN refers to stand-alone lists: e.g. List of unusual drainage systems. (A recent favorite of mine.) This article does not appear to be a stand-alone list.

You seem to have removed a list from within an article that is *not* a stand-alone list. As I read it, WP:LISTN guideline is stand-alone lists. Not whether a list should exist within an article that is not a stand-alone list.

(I'm going to skip any discussion about notability. I'm trying to point out to you that – as far as I can tell – notability guidelines are irrelevant and don't appear to justify the deletion.)

Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Madeleine. I don't think it as a straight forward as you are trying to make it sound. As I've noted above, it's not purely about notability but also about purpose and the appearance of promotion. It is also worth reading WP:LISTBIO about lists of people within articles, which again suggests verifiable notability as a good criteria (with the given example being a school, but I think a clear analogy can be drawn here), and that entries in such a list should be sourced. Again part of my issue is that the names in this list were predominantly sourced to the foundation's own website, which means it is basically duplicating content from there rather than demonstrating that this is worthwhile information to be included in an encyclopedia article. As suggested above, I think the best compromise is a list of notable fellows. Do you have a problem with this? Can you explain why you think it is worthwhile information to include a list of every fellow of the foundation? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The concern about 'promotion' is fair, and I'd rather the edit have been made along those lines – not notability. I would say, in this case... describing a list of fellows makes sense in the sense that it is describing the activities of this foundation. Other foundations have programs they fund; this one funds people instead. That is to say: the entire scope of this organization's activities is described by this list of people (or what those people do). Restricting all names mentioned in this article to "people with WP pages already" is too restrictive, it creates a very incomplete narrative of the organization's actions. On the other hand, even though a simple list isn't too terribly long, I would agree that it seems lazy and promotional. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

angrynative Hi Melcous, you say that it is not just about notability but about the purpose. The article states "The Foundation provides funding for people who have an unproven idea in the form of a 'salary', travel and office expenses." The purpose of listing the people is then to show how the Foundation provides funding for people with an unproven idea, i.e. people who are by definition not yet notable. It cannot be otherwise.

Bear in mind that in February 2017 this page was updated to show all the Fellows, past and present because several female Fellows had been excluded and only some male Fellows had been shown. Listing all Fellows was a response to perceived favoring of male Fellows. Angrynative (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrynative (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to echo the call to restore the list - it's relevant to the article as the foundation's primary work is the fellowship. Removing the list of fellows is silly, and as noted only showing some of the fellows creates a NPOV issue. Seanbonner (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shuttleworth Foundation. 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/20121219065241/http://okfn.org/members/rgrp/ to http://okfn.org/members/rgrp/

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) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)