Talk:Annie E. Casey Foundation
Appearance
Companies Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed merge with Casey Family Programs
Paid editor has tried to expand this article but has found few independent sources. The only way for a separate Casey Family Programs article to exist is to rely mostly on press releases and the website of the article subject, so this is likely to fail WP:ORG and be a permastub, not counting the self-published info. Better to have one well-sourced paragraph in the parent article than a whole article made up mostly of self-sourced material about the subject. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I support the proposed merger. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose the proposed merger. Casey Family Programs is not affiliated with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, so merging with this article would not make any sense whatsoever. Annie E. Casey Foundation and Casey Family Programs are parallel, separate peer organizations. A $2B foundation working in 50 states and regularly called upon as experts in the field merits a separate entry. I have provided a wealth of recent independent sources on the Casey Family Programs talk page.
- I also dispute the categorization that I'm a "paid editor," as I have made clear from the outset. I do not edit Wikipedia listings for a living. I have been very transparent about the fact that I am a short-term contract employee for Casey Family Programs (contract ending next week), and one (very small) part of my duties has been to attempt to address previously stated concerns and improve the accuracy of the listing. The foundation neither solicits nor grants funding, they are not a self-trumpeting organization, they simply want to improve the accuracy of the listing. In no way does my compensation depend on the outcome of this dispute. From the get-go the assigned editor has not afforded us the standard Wikipedia courtesies of assuming good faith, being civil, or being open to compromise. I've had to endure ad hominem personal attacks and the editor has never, not once, offered a substantive editorial suggestion. I've offered multiple revisions and compromises in attempts to respond to blanket criticism, but to no avail.Worldraveler (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)