Talk:Rebecca Masisak

Initial review

I was asked to take a look and review this. On first review, the tone seems a little much like a PR piece, but the information seems to be well sourced to reliable sources which are referenced appropriately. Could use continuing work but seems good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I marked this as reading like a (narrative) resume. For one thing, at least 1/3 of the text is a hagiography of the TechSoup organization; does this article really need to include a list of all 33 countries where the subject's organization operates? Or a paragraph-long description of her favorite anecdote (not an anecdote about her, but a story she likes to tell). Much of the content should be excised and merged into the TechSoup article. This article would do fine if it were 1/3 the length. --Anirvan (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources for expansion

Here are some materials that could be used to improve or expand the article. Not all will meet Wikipedia's reliable sources definition, but perhaps some do. Please note, I work for Rebecca's organization, TechSoup Global. I am trying to inform a decision about whether this article should be kept, but not casting a vote. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Rebecca was included among the 100 visionary leaders on the Real Leaders 100 list in 2015 alongside celebrities like George Clooney and Oprah, humanitarians and activists like Malala and Aung San Suu Kyi, and technologists like Elon Musk and Ben Rattray: http://real-leaders.com/category/real-leaders-100/ (page 6)
• Devex article: https://www.devex.com/news/as-tech-moves-toward-shared-value-what-is-the-role-for-bridge-builders-87320
• KALX radio interview https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/kalx-90.7fm-method-to-madness/id962167772?mt=10
• Media Impact Funders from Modem to Mobile – Celebrating the Past and Future of Nonprofit Tech http://mediaimpactfunders.org/from-modem-to-mobile-celebrating-the-past-and-future-of-nonprofit-tech/
• Tech for Social Good summit in Brussels (In Italian) from May 2016 - http://www.vita.it/it/article/2016/05/24/tecnologia-per-il-bene-sociale-modelli-a-confronto-il-16-giugno-a-brux/139520/
• Social Media Transforms the Fundraising Landscape from May 2015: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbce7e6c-cc90-11e4-b5a5-00144feab7de.html#axzz4DBiS6jMR
• Bethel Park High School Alumni Hall of Fame Inductees Announced Feb 2015: http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20150223/NEWS/150229970
• Creamery is deal central for SF techies Jul 2013: http://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/article/Creamery-is-deal-central-for-SF-techies-3707983.php
• IT Web (Africa) article about global expansion, where Rebecca is quoted from Nov 2015: http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148033
• Information Age article about ngos moving to the cloud Sep 2012: http://www.information-age.com/technology/cloud-and-virtualisation/2123328/over-half-of-ngos-plan-to-move-it-into-the-cloud
• Big Data and Philanthropy overview of a plenary panel Rebecca moderated at a big grantmaker event in Copenhagen: http://siresearch.eu/blog/%E2%80%98big-data%E2%80%99-and-philanthropy-%E2%80%93-powerful-mixed-blessing

Thank you for these sources. However I don't think any of them are particularly useful or support Masisak's notability. We need sources that are reliable and that contain significant biographical content about her. I went through all of these sources and I don't think any of them fit the bill. Most of these contain a quote or two from Masisak, not something we'd include in a biography. The only source with significant biographical content is the Almanac source but that does not appear reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

A lot of content was added recently by Alicjapeas and then re-added by Dr. Blofeld. Since then I believe I have gone through every single source and deleting a whole lot of content that is unverifiable, non-noteworthy, or non-neutral and that had the combined effect of inflating Masisak's importance beyond what was warranted by the independent reliable sources. For instance, I removed some complimentary language that read like marketing-speak and that was supported only by press releases issued by TechSoup. Perhaps not coincidentally, the article is now about as long as it was before Alicjapeas' original edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

To claim I just readded it without considerable reediting and making some effort to address neutrality is just not true so I suggest you reword that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I never bothered to check how your edits compared to Alicjapeas's. I was just going based on what you wrote on my user talk. My apologies for the misunderstanding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Change "re-added" to "re-edited". I spent a fair bit of time this morning trying to dial down on it and change it, I suggest you go back and look into what I did. Alicja's version was 13 kb mine was 9 kb, so I'd cut a third of it and altered a fair amount. Trimming out padding and some stuff further is fine but I don't think you have to complete hide everything to make it a decent, reasonably balanced article which doesn't read as a promotion. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)