Talk:Freedom Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Freedom Institute article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] NPOV

The page as repeatedly presented does not reflect a balanced, neutral point of view. It is, in effect, an ad for the Freedom Institute rather than a rounded entry reflecting a range of viewpoints and providing the reader with the resources to read further on all sides of the debate and make their own mind up.

As such, the repeated deletion of links to postings and articles critical of the Freedom Institute is contrary to the ethos of the Wikipedia. It is also contrary to the intellectual tradition the Freedom Insitute claims as its own. Tupp1

The style and content of this article is consistent with those on similar institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation or Institute of Economic Affairs or even Phish. The commenter above is confusing the functions of Wikipedia with that of his blog, to which a link is already provided.
Someone above has stated "style and content of this article is consistent with those on similar institutions". This is irrelevant to the Tuppenceworth bod's query. Wikipedia is intended to be an information resource. FI activists wiping true and accurate information on their outfit and replacing it with their PR (itself cribbed from the Atlas Foundation cheat-sheet[[1]]) isn't acceptable for Wikipedia.
====rebuttal of tupps section above====
If Tuppenseworth's query was being objective, then he would be well advised to level the same equally across all such similar organisations to that of the Freedom Institute. The absence of this action is noteable, and highly relevant. Thus, the style and content similarity is highly relevant to rebuttal of the same query.
Furthermore, the facts of what the Freedom Institute's function is have been clearly laid down. Therefore all other matters simply relate to opinion on how successful or otherwise it carries out its actions. Since this opinion can very depending on perception of of level of success/failure, then one can only conclude that what IS relevant for this article is the objectives and description as already laid out. As this cannot in itself be in dispute, then this "debate" is irrelevant.194.129.67.171 18:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Y.
Why should Tuppenceworth give a damn about what's on other pages? This is about the Freedom Institute's page on Wikipedia, and nothing else. The fact is, that the existing W. entry (which mentioned, among other things, the PD origins of the FI) has been completely wiped and replaced by the standard (anodyne) FI publicity guff, straight off their own website. And this was, undoubtedly, done by one of the busy little elves at the FI itself.

This is a dispute on whether the article as repeatedly displayed by the Freedom Institute regarding themselves presents a neutral point of view. We are lucky not to be the first Wikipedians to have ever faced such a dispute. A process has developed to deal with such issues. A Neutral Point Of View disputes follow pretty reasonable lines.

To quote from the guidelines: "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Now, I don't expect the Freedom Institute to allow their posting on the Wikipedia to decend into a derogatory slag. They spend considerable time and effort on their actions and organisation. It is only fair that this effort, and their ambitions for that organisation be expressed. But I do think that saying "The Freedom Institute endorses no political party or politician." doesn't tell the full story to the casual reader. It is a disputable statement, presented as fact. For example, some editors of this page have remarked that the FI appear to support Mr. Bush's policys. The FI page as originally posted describes the membership as frustrated Progressive Democrats. To say, as I have in my proposed edit, that "Though many of its members described themselves originally as frustrated Progressive Democrats the Freedom Institute now endorses no political party or politician directly." both allows for the current position of the FI to be stated, without removing the valuable additional information regarding the PD background of the members. It strikes me that this is "presenting competing versions of what the facts are" as the Wikipedia suggests. Tupp1 23:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

JUST THE FACTS, MADAM AUDITOR

This whole debate is a set up - as evidenced this posting of relevance: http://fifiefoefum.blogspot.com/2005/08/fi-wikipedia-entry.html.

To wit:

"I've taken the liberty of updating the Wikipedia entry on the Freedom Fries Institute."

The NPOV complaint is an unjustified extension of a personalized argument between disgruntled posters (each with their own blogs) to the Freedom Institute blog and the FI's site owner(s) who edited or removed their comments (violated the FI's commenting guidelines).

It's a tiresome debate, unworthy of Wikipedia, and an indictment of the people behind this kind of behaviour.

Given that the FIFIEFOEFUM people behind this malice have their own specialised BLOG now, dedicated to critique of the Freedom Institute, then I fail to see why the Wikipedia's entry on the FI should be debated here at all, and all questions about its neutrality of point of view should be discarded.
BERNIE 04:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Bernie, The Deprecated Font of Knowledge.

hey Bernie, how does "I've taken the liberty of updating the Wikipedia entry on the Freedom Fries Institute." translate into a 'set-up'? The matter of FI censorship and supression of debate warrants inclusion in the Wikipedia entry. The issue isn't the violation of the FI's own posting guidelines, because their censorship extends well beyond any such guidelines.

HI, PETER

A Tuppenceworth notes, the FI folks are quite keen to scrub information relating to their origins which is available elsewhere on the Internet. Sjostrom has acknowledged (on his own blog) that at least some of the founding members were students of his. Indymedia reproduced an article from Phoenix on their Progressive Democrat origins. Each of these were referenced in the version now wiped by FI members.

[edit] Standards

I don't know what the history here is but I'm not buying some of this. Two points. First, wikipedia has a standard for groups like this and it does matter. A page is to state the facts not to interpret them. This is a big problem with politically controversial groups. Because this is a encyclopedia you should add links to critical literature in the external links, and even then only if you think that they meet certain standards. I'm going to keep out of that one, but I really don't think that some of the stuff I see in the history is at all appropriate. It's just as out of place as it would be if someone came along and praised their work in detail. In short, it's irrelevant. Link if you must at all.

By the way, a group is non-partisan unless its staff are drawn preponderantly from one party. Fight that one out amongst yourselves.

Second, I've checked the claim that the page as it stands is "FI publicity guff, straight off their own website" and I've not been able to find anything of the text of this page from their site beyond the statement of what their principles are, and even that is paraphrasing. I strongly question the motivations of some of the people on here. That's no language that is helps anyone construct a fair article and it turns out to be false from what I've been finding.

One more thing. The claim that the group originally described themselves as frustrated members of a party seems to be based on the original page for the group on wikipedia, but that's clearly not written by them. The language used and the minimal information are inconsistent with an attempt at publicity. Unless there is something else in which they give themselves that self-description then you don't have anything to go with their. You need a link to support a claim if their official position contradicts what you're saying. Without one I don't think you should post it.
I have to agree with the above - the motivations of some detractors here is very questionable, especially as some similar organisations linked off its page don't seem to be in dispute. Who are those who disagree with what's daid down? why dont they clearly make known their disquiet rather than infer they are being supressed? In any case I think they would be better airing them elsewhere, as there is little of the above that is based on linked facts other than those links included on this page (which only relate to existing organisations, or how to resolve a wikipedia dispute, so doesnt lay out arguments as to why the freedom institute description isn't accurate.)
The point of the disputed content is that it had been edited by the FI to remove any reference to the matter of their treatment of commentary on their 'policy' blog. In truth there is ongoing censorship of any commentary which disputes the accuracy of their claims; a position which is impossible to confirm with "linked facts", given that they have been repeatedly erased by FI members on their blog, leaving the fifiefofum blog as the sole repository for uncensored discussion of their punditry.
In short the dispute is not about the intended ethos and functionality of the FI, but rather about the shortcomings in how they operate in that regard.

Availability of information

This isn't about whether information is available or not. On both competing edits the information is available through links in the 'external links' section. This is standard practice in wikipedia since the beginning. It's the only way to resolve pointless fights like this one. It is not acceptable for a third party to insist that one interpretation of the nature of the group's activities be inserted in a listed that aspires to present a factual account. These are entirely proper in their place, which is why countless pages for similar groups in wikipedia maintain extensive 'external links' sections. Were wikipedia to open itself to the inclusion of subjective material concerning the supposed unstated political sympathies of groups, complaints about positions or procedures, evaluations of their worth or impact, or other necessarily inconclusive vies, the project would lose the one thing that holds it together as a valuable resourse - it's limitation, as far as possible, to the facts of the matter as they can be established and agreed upon. Whoever is insisted on inserting their own gripe with the group should respect the ethos and rules of wikipedia.


There is no subjective information included in the 'Openness' paragraph. Where controversy attaches itself to an individual or organisation, that relevent information should be reflected within their listing. The issue of censorship and evasion of debate is central to the stated intent of the FI, and therefore merits inclusion. This is not a matter of disputed ideology or any other subjective matter.

Whatever juvenile wrote the paragraph above needs to recognize that a blog deleting shit from blogroaches in their comments is standard practise. What you write here and on your own blog shows they'd be unusually tolerant not to.

Well, this isn't really getting us places. Let's try a different tack, rather than popping disputed paragraphs back in and out.

I'd say that I'd be content to have the FiFieFoeFum blog linked to, and named, in the external links. That the paragraph regarding the intellectual background and the FI founders' political affliation from the edit of 00:47, 22 August 2005 is sourced with links and of use to the reader. It portrays the clearest view of the FI's affliation and background available, rather than merely the view as the FI would like it portrayed. That information ought to stay. However, as the NPOV guidelines provide for, it also presents the FI's own view as an alternative. If they would care to expand or back up their claim of no party affliations, or to be Ireland's fastest growing policy group with links to facts (or bibliographic citations if the sources aren't available online) then that would be excellent as well.

As regards the hard fought Openness to other points of view paragraph- I wrote it and re-reading it do feel that it could be improved, or deleted if room is made for some reference to the controversy it refers to. I suggest that a draft alternative, which need only be a line attached to one of the existing paragraphs if well drafted, be posted here from an FI supporter.

There you go- a compromise offer. I'll leave it for a while before editing the main page as above, to let whoever may wish to respond to do so. But think of all the goodness that could flow from it. We all get lots of time back on our hands to use in weeding the garden, the Wikipedia gets a richer, better sourced entry than was otherwise the case and everyone is happy. Or at least not actively unhappy. And the Sunday Tribune might even report on peace breaking out all over the land.

What say ye? Tupp1 10:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weblogs as sources

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources:

"Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources."
"That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website."

(This policy does not apply to a mere external link to the FI Fie Fo Fum blog -- I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute that FI Fie Fo Fum is "a blog which is critical of the FI")

Demiurge 18:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Demi - the links to Sjostrom's blog (a primary source); a comment (which the FI wisely chose not to deny) on their blog outing specific members as being members of Young Fine Gael (in contradiction of previous FI claims); a link to a reproduction on IndyMedia of a Phoenix article on the FI origins; a post on Free Stater producing evidence of Atlas Foundation influence on the formation of the FI: these all meet the criteria, yet have been wiped by FI members.

Under the aforementioned policy,
  • Sjostrom's blog can be used as a source about Sjostrom himself, but not about the Freedom Institute (is he even a member? I did a bit of googling and only found a few random references to his blog on freedominst.org).
  • Likewise for the Free Stater (which I presume is a blog too)
  • The Phoenix article is fine as a source
  • Third-party comments left on blogs are not admissible as either primary or secondary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet)
Demiurge 23:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I am unfamiliar with this organization, or the prior controversy over this article. However, the way the article is written is clearly intended to "sell" the policies of the organization, and is therefore unacceptable under Wikipedia NPOV policy. At the very least, the article should be re-written so as to be neutral. --HK 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This article reads like something issued by its PR company, not NPOV reportage. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The article has largely been written by the FI themselves, and the edit history shows they have been pretty quick to revert any edits which they see as unfavourable. NPOVing the article is one of my long-term goals, but I'm proceeding by degrees :) --Ryano 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged citation in "media outlets"

We seem to have a problem here. Anonymous editors keep putting in claims for "media citations" of the FI, or, in the latest version, the FI "and its members". However, these aren't all they're claimed to be. Of the latest round, the Irish Times article doesn't mention the Freedom Institute, the Jerusalem Post article doesn't mention the Freedom Institute; the Daily Star article doesn't mention the Freedom Institute; Tech Central Station appears to be some sort of super-blog rather than a media source; the Magill article doesn't cite the Freedom institute but the citation given is to a copy of the article web-published by the FI, and it seems that the author may be a member of the FI; the only case of all those given where a "media source" actually cites the FI is the one of far-right website frontpagemag.

In other words, some people keep posting material on this site with purported citations that don't bear out what they're meant to be sources for. Palmiro | Talk 13:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Magill publish articles by several FI members including Peter Nolan, Richard Waghorne, Keith Mallon, and John Hammond. The Jerusalem Post article is written by Peter Nolan, as is the TCS piece; the Daily Star article by Dr. Rory Miller as is the Irish Times article. All of these individuals are Freedom Institute members and named as such on their website.

The word 'cited' seems to be the problem and has been replaced with cited or written by.

The importance of the section is its role in allowing users to investigate the FI's role in public debate for themselves. As such, a two-sentence collation of brief links presenting published material and citations is entirely appropriate and in keeping with long established Wikipedia practice.

It looks like it's you, whoevcer you are, that don't know what you're talking about. The article contained citations to sources that didn't mention the Freedom Institute. It's not my job to go looking for further sources to substantiate a claim for which sources have been given that turn out not to support that claim. It's the job of the person making the claim and citing the inadequate sources. If the evidence was the Freedom Institute website then that should have been cited in the first place. If you make claims and cite websites as sources and they turn out not to support those claims, its only your own fault that people doubt the honesty of the claims. In any case, I see that the original assertion that the "Freedom Institute" was cited by those "media outlets" has been pared down to "The Freedom Institute or its members have appeared in media outlets...". This, at least, is progress towards truthfulness. Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated attempts to suppress critical web site link

I think it's amusing that an anonymous user is attempting to suppress the link to FIfoefumfee (or whatever) on the basis that it is "defunct" or "dead". It appears to have been updated more recently than the FI site itself, and certainly more recently than the FI blog. Going by this post, it appears they've stopped adding to the site because the FI have stopped updating its blog. --Ryano 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Talk%7EFreedom_Institute_accf.html"