User talk:Aagon~enwiki: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:05, 7 March 2008

A few Wikipedia articles list mission statements, but that doesn't make it correct. This is an Encyclopedia in progress. Think about other encyclopedias- (World Book, etc) with rare exceptions, you will not find mission statements. This is because the mission statements purpose is to promote, and encyclopedias are not promotional. Besides, you can put all the information you want about what the organization does in the body of the article as long as it is specific and citable information. My purpose is not to outright delete things, thats why I am explaining in detail every edit I make. It would be easier just to revert, but I know that your edits are in good faith. Take the time and find specific articles to cite if you want to improve the body of the article. Remember, your purpose here is only to wright an encyclopedia. Your knowledge gained from your experience with this organization may be helpful in finding useful information, but Wikipedia rules does not allow you to incorporate your own knowledge into the article. Here is a link to reliable sources to help you find media coverage to form the basis of the article. Also, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes. Richprentice (talk)Richprentice —Preceding comment was added at 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Regardless of my opinion on weather mission statements should be included in the encyclopedia, I am perfectly willing to go with the Wikipedia standard. I have put in a request for clarification on this. But looking at other Wikipedia articles on organizations, it seems the more well written ones do not rely on the mission statement.Richprentice (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Richprentice[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 UPDATE:  Regardless of my opinion on weather mission statements should be included in the encyclopedia, I am perfectly willing to go with the Wikipedia standard.  I have put in a request for clarification on this.  But looking at other Wikipedia articles on organizations, it seems the more well written ones do not rely on the mission statement.[[User:Richprentice|Richprentice]] ([[User talk:Richprentice|talk]]) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Richprentice
-== Organisation mission statements in lead paragraphs ==
-An organisation's "mission statement" might give you some ideas of things to put in a lead paragraph, and might be worth linking to or quoting if particularly relevant, but certainly it wouldn't often be suitable to serve as the lead itself (I guess there might be a situation where it is, depending).  Hope that helps! --<font color="#0000ff">[[User talk:Grey Knight|<sub>tiny plastic</sub> Grey Knight]]</font> <font color="#777777">[[User:tiny plastic Grey Knight|⊖]]</font> 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-:Agreed; a lengthy quote is generally inappropriate, but using selective wording often is useful, and can avoid arguments. Another way around the problem is to simply say ''XYZ says that their mission is "To do A, B, and C";<sup>[1]</sup>'' again, preferably without quoting at length.
-:As to why you see this so often, I suspect it's not so much because most editors feel this is appropriate, but rather because editors with [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]] who are unaware of or chose to ignore that guideline have gone ahead and cited themselves (so to speak), or those with strong feelings (say, about a political organization) have chosen to quote something at length. And then the text "sticks" because the organizations are relatively obsure, or the partisans of the language are more persistent in keeping the language in.
-:But if push comes to shove, "mission statements" do get cut down or eliminated altogether. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font>  [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)