User talk:50.242.216.153

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 50.242.216.153, removed content from the page Planet Aid without giving an explanation. Please always provide an informative edit summary when removing content from pages. If 50.242.216.153 is a shared IP address and you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors and further irrelevant notices.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Tips on starting your first article
• Help pages
• Tutorial

Here are some other hints and tips:

• I recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
• When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 50.242.216.153. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Planet Aid, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi, I don't have a conflict of interest with anyone that I'm aware of, especially not Planet Aid. I work for a tech company based in Texas remotely from Maryland, and they don't have a wikipedia page. I had just read the news about this group, and went down a rabbit hole - reading the full court ruling and the related articles. Having read over this entry, I realized a few sources were opinion-based, so I was just adjusting them accordingly. Not sure why some of the edits were reversed. For example, the line, "CIR compared the case to Bollea v. Gawker, saying it was an attempt by deep pocketed individuals to use the courts to silence a media outlet" remains, but my addition "Since the ruling, the Washington Post and Columbia Journalism Review have compared the Center for Investigative Reporting lawsuit to the Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems lawsuits v. Fox News" was removed. The author for both the CJR article and the CIR article that made both comparisons is the same person. If it stands to reason that one should be there, then the other should as well. I'm also not sure I understand why the CharityWatch rating is in the summary, but the BBB/Charity Navigator entries are relegated to the section on Charitable Accountability. They are all specific to that section and not a summary of the organization. I use Charity Navigator and CharityWatch with my position to check the budgets and accountability of foster care organizations. CharityWatch is opinion-based and doesn't include any financial accountability, so anything they say on budget, especially in comparison to another nonprofit isn't factual. You can actually track the public spending of an organization with Charity Navigator, which is why I moved the opinion to the section on Charitable Accountability. Happy to let this go, just hoping for some reasoning within the wiki rules as to why one would be allowed and not the other. Thank you. 50.242.216.153 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The rationales for these edits were given in their respective edit summaries. Specifically, the opinion pieces in The Washington Post and Columbia Journalism Review that you cited represent the views of their author(s), not the publication. Your contention that the CharityWatch rating is opinion-based and doesn't include any financial accountability seems to be incorrect; regardless, their rating is covered in multiple independent sources, unlike Charity Navigator. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your removing reliably sourced info about Goodwill as "obviously PR", while doing obvious PR yourself on behalf of Planet Aid, makes me doubt that you have no connection to the organization. Your statement about Goodwill's "financials" is exactly the kind of "opinion" you denigrated in other sources. Wikipedia is not for advertising or public relations, and I don't see any evidence that you are a reliable source on Goodwill's financial record. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still fail to understand how Goodwill's expenditures (which are also public on GuideStar, like other orgs) is related to the organization at all. I work for a tech company called KaleidaCare out of Austin, if you want to look it up. As I said, I happened to go down a rabbit hole and the editing around articles and mentions of this organization on Wikipedia have some strong and obvious bias. I'm a former wiki mod÷ and I was just really surprised with how obviously manipulative these edits were. You can read all of the sources I've provided and see for yourself that the ratings claiming 11% are just inaccurate. There are multiple organizations that use the financials of Planet Aid that show 84%+ (depending on the year). If anything, I'd say the issues people have with the organization seem to solely relate to the money that they give to the NGOs, but those have nothing to do with IRS-classified operating expenses. I've worked for a lot of nonprofits, and even partnered with Goodwill in the past. The way they classify their expenses seems to be almost identical, like in the way they write off staff which most organizations don't do, but no one is adding mentions of how Planet Aid doesn't do that on their article. So, again, it seems very oddly biased and I don't get why. 206.198.248.212 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are indeed a former wiki mod then you should know that we go by what published sources say, not users' original research. The quoted figure about Goodwill's charitable spending is directly contrasted with that of Planet Aid in the cited USA Today source. If you dispute the neutrality of any edits, you can take it to WP:NPOV/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia, to be clear. Just a wiki. I'll make sure and do that in the future. 50.242.216.153 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

---