User talk:Wasoxygen
Gravity Payments[edit]
Hello: I reverted the material you added about Gravity Payments no longer offering the 70K minimum salary. The sources you used were from GP itself, and requires us to extrapolate the fact that this might be the case. We don't do that-- we say what is published in independent sources and try not to draw conclusions. Maybe they just took it off their website but they are still offering it? Who knows. If you can find sources somewhere that says they no longer offer the 70K to new employees, then you can add the material back with those independent sources. Thanks, ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I disagree for a few reasons:
- 1. My edit did not draw the conclusion that Gravity Payments no longer offers the $70K minimum salary; it merely states it was removed from the published list of benefits, as confirmed by the changes to the Gravity Payments website.
- 2. I agree that an independent source would be preferable. A recent NYT opinion piece doesn't make clear whether the minimum is given to all employees, nor does a Forbes interview from last year answer the quesiton.
- 3. The $70K wage and related media coverage is the only reason this company is notable enough to have an article, so whether it is in fact practiced it is highly relevant.
- 4. The rule about independent sources is not absolute. The article on Tesla has 18 citations from tesla.com.
- The following featured articles all contain citations from the web site belonging to the subject of the article:
- I believe my edit was consistent with the goal of building "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views."
- Wasoxygen (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said, if you can find an independent source, it is OK. in #1 you are basically reporting on the subject, which is OR. Re: Tesla, non-independent sources are sometimes OK for non-controversial items. But independent sources are always preferred. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am not the source of the information. Original research refers to material "for which no reliable, published sources exist." Do you claim that the Gravity Payments web site is not, in this instance, a reliable, published source of information about the benefits advertised at Gravity Payments?
- If the source were my own blog, I agree it would be unacceptable. If the information were "promotional" (i.e. favorable) I agree the company website would not be an appropriate source.
Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. i.e. "The organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not.
- The connection of the source (Gravity Payments) to the topic (benefits at Gravity Payments) is clear. I don't see any exception in the guidelines for "non-controversial" subjects. The concern is accuracy of the information, especially when a source has interest in misrepresenting the facts. Gravity Payments does not have a promotional interest in claiming that a celebrated benefit was discontinued.
- Wasoxygen (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)