Talk:Centrelink

External references on complaints or client dissatisfaction

Would this count as reliable resourec for the all-being crap-ness of centrelink?--ZZ 07:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the link mentioned by ZayZayEM in October 2004 is a reliable resource for client dissatisfaction with Centrelink. It is one person's experience and thus not an appropriate link. Similarly I removed from the external links, http://centrelinkbreach.blogspot.com which was tagged as being a Centrelink Complaints Blog but seemed to have contributions from only one person. I feel extrnal links about complaints need to be based on many people's experiences to be a valid link to this article. There is an issue of how the individual voice is heard against a large organisation or even a collection of voices, but there are ombudsman reports and other records of lack of client satisfaction.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Links

I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:

• Can link unemployment benefits: ...g pensions, student allowances, and unemployment benefits (the 'dole'). Additionally, Centrelink ...
• Can link the Commonwealth: ...an citizens. Centrelink operates under the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997....
• Can link welfare payment: ... surrounding fraud and abuse of the welfare payment system, competency of staff, and qualit...
• Can link January 1: ...primary students who turned 14 prior to January 1 of their current year of study. To qual...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 08:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment on quality of article

This is without a doubt the worst article I have read at wikipedia, it reads more like a rant by a 12 year old than an article. I hope it gets fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.112.163 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Major edits to article

In response to recent major edits to the article I placed on his/her talk page the following comments.

I have reverted your edits to the Centerlink article as I think you had removed a lot of useful information. Please feel free to edit the article again but perhaps focussing on adding to what is there rather than deleting the work of other editors, Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again - your edits to the Centrelink article were a little too bold and have been reverted. Please consider editing by adding material, removing only inaccurate material, or by rewording poorly expressed material. Thanks --A Y Arktos (Talk) 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtkiefer jhas also commented on Kennis's talk page:

Yet again, please stop removing large amounts of content from Centrelink with no apparent reason or explanation. If you continue you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He has replied to my talk page (and similarly to his talk page and Jtkiefer's talk page) as follows:

The text inserted is on behalf of Centrelink. Replaced text holds a lot of inaccurate information on payments and eligibility. The text added to the site is to generalise payments and services Centrelink delivers. For details, people are directed to Centrelink's website. Considering that contributions on Wikipedia can be accessed and altered by anyone, there is no need to elaborate on payments and services as long as there is a link to the official website of the department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia should be a mirror for Centrelink, nor does someone claiming to be a representative for Centrelink have any more editorial rights than other wikipedians. Alteration to content needs to be made on the merits of the material itself. If the content is inaccurate it should be removed. If it is incomplete it should be annotated appropriately and considered, preferably via discussion on this talk page.

In summary, before making wholesale changes to the content of this article, please discuss on this talk page and obtain concensus of other editors. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 23:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Certain portions of the article are lacen with POV:Newstart is "generous" and the coalition changes to the system are "reforms". Other instances of a narrow, neoliberal viewpoint, also exist.Jackk 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A reference to reform ahs been removed, the Newstart section has been revised. I am removing the neutrality tag, pending the identification of further issues with the article--A Y Arktos 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)