Talk:The Conversation (website)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More References Please[edit]

I flagged this page with several tags to reflect the lack of footnotes in some places.

  1. In the History section, there are several paragraphs that do not cite references, especially towards the end of the section.
  2. Neither the Principals nor the Contributors sections contain any references whatsoever.
  3. As a general rule, it is best to have a reference at the end of each paragraph at a minimum. References embedded inside the paragraph are required when a paragraph consists of information aggregated from several sources.
  4. There are no tags to flag articles for having too many references.
I have made some headway on the citations issue, but the tone also required editing—it is a shame that a media innovation such as this should have its Wiki page marred by such issues. I will continue to contribute to this article, but it really needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Conversation UK[edit]

I have added a section on the UK version of the website, but the title of this article may need to be changed to "The Conversation Australia" to reflect the change that will be created by the launch of the UK website in May 2013.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tone issue[edit]

The article did indeed read like an advertisement, including a promotional conclusion for the UK site that directed readers to the URL. I feel confident that I have addressed the issue throughout the entire article, and have also amended other matters, such as syntax, repeat Wiki links and outdated content. The inline citation issue remains, though, so the Refimprove template is still at the top of the page.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claim, "perceived as being an outlet for far left-wing politicians"[edit]

I have removed a claim (3 times now) which is not supported by significant mention in WP:RSes.

The number of times you remove a claim isn't relevant. The issue at hand is whether or not the criticism is valid. It is valid. Therefore, the criticism should remain. Your insistence on removing valid criticism makes it appear as if you have an undisclosed conflict of interest.

The claim in the article was "Furthermore, they are perceived as being an outlet for far left-wing politicians, such as the Syriza Party, which came to power in Greece on an anti-austerity and mildly pro-Marxist economic platform."

and the reference only refers to The Conversation in passing: "The recent drama has revealed the startling number of Greek social scientists and economists who are employed in British universities, nearly all of whom it seems, have piled in with pro-Syriza articles in highbrow online publications like Open Democracy and the Conversation."

The removed sentence isn't even a good representation of this one sentence in one article on a website - thecommentator.com - which may or may not be a reliable source. The sentence refers to Greek social scientists, not far left-wing politicians.

The removal has been reverted twice by an anon editor, most recently with the comment: Do you work for The Conversation, or what? This is a legitimate criticism. Moderators: Note, possible conflict of interest.

No, I don't have any association with The Conversation. Also, the claim about perceptions and far left-wing politicians may be true for all I know (people perceive all sorts of things, especially where ideology is involved), but is not supported by the provided source. If an editor wishes to revert again, please give reasoning here, and note that sources must support the specific claims made. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd like to see deletion as a good faith process." Follow your own advice rather than just deleting valid criticism with which you disagree.

Please do not revert again, and note: The text is not supported by the provided source. If you have a suitable source, please provide it.
I don't even disagree, necessarily - it's just unsupported. Provide suitable backing and I'll change my mind. --Chriswaterguy talk 12:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text is supported by the article. Here's what the article says: "The firebrand Alexis Tsipras has had access to the op.ed pages of numerous leading Western newspapers. The recent drama has revealed the startling number of Greek social scientists and economists who are employed in British universities, nearly all of whom it seems, have piled in with pro-Syriza articles in highbrow online publications like Open Democracy and the Conversation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.246.136 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not the same as "perceived as being an outlet for far left-wing politicians". The tone of the article also sounds like an opinion piece, rather than strict reporting.
Also: Never delete people's comment on talk pages, as you did here, without an exceptionally good reason. --Chriswaterguy talk 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "highbrow online publications like [...] the Conversation" really a criticism? Are they criticized for having published Tsipras' supporters' op-ed pieces? I don't see that. I also share Chriswaterguy's reservatios about the reliability of TheCommentator.com. Huon (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are being criticized for publishing multiple pieces by Tsipras's supporters. TheCommentator.com is well-known among foreign policy writers. Whether or not you've heard of the site isn't relevant.
Who says that's criticism? Looks more like a neutral observation to me. TheCommentator.com certainly does not mention that they have been criticized. Also, whether or not that's a reliable source is highly relevant. Huon (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The anon has changed the wording to be in line with the source. I'm not convinced that its inclusion is justified, but at least it's not blatantly false, now. I'll leave further improvements to others. --Chriswaterguy talk 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article of the website to the base title at this time. Further, no consensus to change the title of the film in this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 20:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A media outlet with international reach and moderate readership is a better candidate for the primary topic for this name than a movie from the 1970's, even if it did win several awards. With that said, a check of viewer figures suggests otherwise[1], though this is somewhat tempered by the fact that people seeking "The Conversation (website)" will go to "The Conversation". I would also note that the Alexa rank of the website itself is quite high for an article not considered primary. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate both. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered proposing that, but it seems a bit like Judgment of Solomon - we already have a disambiguation page for Conversation, using The Conversation as one seems like a waste of a primary-page just to simplify the decision. However, I wouldn't really have any issue with that. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer disambiguating both in a case like this where the two topics are each significant to completely different sets of readers. I also think it is best not to swap titles because it will confuse external incoming links. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes sense - least surprise and all that. I think I actually prefer this option now. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let the basename redirect to the existing DAB page, Conversation (disambiguation), which already lists the several "The Conversation"s. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The fact that the movie is from the 1970 is not a negative factor, on the contrary, the fact that it has long-term significance is a requirement for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, just as a side-remark, this is a pretty famous and significant movie. That said, If the consensus goes for a no primary situation, I'm not opposed to that. --Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both (ie oppose 1st, support 2nd) and redirect The Conversation→Conversation (disambiguation) - I don't see either being primary, and indeed the DAB has other entries that match this title. Its commonplace to redirect A/An/The/etc to the disambiguation page for the root word when there are few entries. I'm open to an alternate disambiguation phrase for The Conversation (website) because I think "website" is a poor disambiguator overall. -- Netoholic @ 12:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both to make it much easier to find the citations that are linked to a movie instead of a news website. Links to dab pages are easy to find and fix. Links to the wrong article are much harder. --Scott Davis Talk 13:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blatant recentism. Reducing a Cannes Grande Prix-winner (ie. with "international reach") by Francis Ford Coppola to "a movie from the 1970's" is an absurdity. Page views show most of the traffic to the film don't go to the website as well. [2] Ribbet32 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, early SNOW CLOSE per above. film is a clear Primary Topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I strongly oppose the proposed title swap, I disagree that there is a clear primary topic. Page views are always interesting to look at, but should never be considered conclusive. There is no primary topic because these two topics are both significant and completely independent, both taking their name from a common English word. There will be many readers of the academic news outlet, currently making significant growth in prominence, who will be astonished to arrive at an old movie. The movie now has a title that fails WP:PRECISE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strong oppose REDIRECTING to the existing copious dab page, we don't need a new dab, though the film is still 75% of all views In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the film and Create a disambiguation page at The Conversation. I understand the arguments for redirecting to the existing Conversation (disambiguation), but there are eight titles scattered across that page, and I doubt that someone searching for "The Conversation" is looking for something without "The". 94.21.238.64 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose 1st, support 2nd, The Conversation should be a DAB page. Views [[3]] show the film does get the most views but considering the arguments above I don't see a case for any to be primary. Per User:Andrewa/Incoming links such a PT swap would land readers on the wrong place from external links to the film. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Combining terms on disambiguation pages says "The Conversation" should be in the same dab page as "conversation" as the terms differ only by an article and capitalisation. --Scott Davis Talk 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's usually done but it looks like the uses of "Conversation" and "The Conversation" are very distinct and a reader who entered either term would probably not be looking for articles by the other title. The Sun is a DAB page even though the star is known as "The Sun" sometimes. A Conversation is not referred to/searched as "The Conversation" (and would definately not get "The" per WP:THE similar to Small Isles/The Small Isles). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of criticism section[edit]

I think it violates the policy on due weight to create a criticism section on the back of one opinion piece, so I have removed it. But I know these removals can be controversial, so I am opening this section if anyone would like to give input. – Teratix ₵ 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone also noted below, this is an ad without criticism. 71.105.97.64 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General updates[edit]

Other than the discussion on move to the base page, there hasn't been much update in recent years. Most of the readership numbers are 2-3 years out of date. It probably needs less detail on the Australian edition and its members and more on the other editions that have launched in Canada, Africa, Indonesia and Spain.

On the leadership side, Andrew Jaspan resigned in 2017 after staff complaints. The UK edition recruited a new Chief Executive and the US edition a new Editor.--Fredrikegerman (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back a couple of months later, I've now made the edits I suggested above and tried to find updated data where I could. Fredrikegerman (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read more like an ad than an article[edit]

This article is in rather poor state and read more like an ad for the subject than an article in an encyclopedia. Therr are unsourced claims about how good The Conversation is (unsourced claims that major newspaper rely on it), no mention of any criticism, an overall tone extolling its virtues... It's a very unbalanced article that is not suitable for Wikipedia in its current state. It should be extensively rewritten, and all sections need to adhere to a neutral tone. Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can add that this is an ad written and at least controlled by The Conversation insiders. I had added a short criticism section, which was removed despite it not being a POV addition, bt was meant to offer some sense to this entry. To no avail. 71.105.97.64 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense sentence "each edition is a nonprofit"[edit]

"Each edition of The Conversation is an independent not-for-profit or charity..." No "edition" of anything is a "non-profit or charity." Can someone who knows what this is supposed to mean please correct it? Thanks

WikiAlto (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of this article is an ad, written by insiders of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:4E08:E800:F5AB:9392:697B:A97 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section written about the growing censorship on the website. theconversation.com/au used to have very thorough discussion involving many academics at the bottom of any posted article and these days, there are frequently zero comments at the bottom of an article, even when it is a very polemic issue. Is there any available data about the level of censorship on theconversation.com/au ? For example, the number of submitted comments as a ratio to the number of visible comments? This data would be very interesting. 203.166.248.34 (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Conversation#Requested move 30 September 2021 which affects links intended for this article. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening the references cited[edit]

This article has had the {{advert}} tag for a few years now. A collection of useful scholarly references to check for information to be integrated:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

References

  1. ^ Young, Mary-Lynn; Hermida, Alfred (2020-06-07). "The Conversation Canada: A Case Study of a Not for Profit Journalism in a Time of Commercial Media Decline". Rochester, NY. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Riedlinger, Michelle; Fleerackers, Alice; Bruns, Axel; Burgess, Jean; Guenther, Lars; Joubert, Marina; Osman, Kim (2021-09-15). "THE CONVERSATION, TEN YEARS ON: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF A UNIQUE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING INITIATIVE". AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research. doi:10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12130. ISSN 2162-3317.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  3. ^ Hermida, Alfred; Young, Mary Lynn (2019-12-17). "From Peripheral to Integral? A Digital-Born Journalism Not for Profit in a Time of Crises". Media and Communication. 7 (4): 92–102. doi:10.17645/mac.v7i4.2269. ISSN 2183-2439.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ Guenther, Lars; Joubert, Marina (2021-06-16). "Novel interfaces in science communication: Comparing journalistic and social media uptake of articles published by The Conversation Africa". Public Understanding of Science: 09636625211019312. doi:10.1177/09636625211019312. ISSN 0963-6625.
  5. ^ Stuart, Osman, Kim Cunningham, (2020-02-25). ‘Amplifier’ platforms and impact: Australian scholars’ use of The Conversation. National Tertiary Education Union. OCLC 1157276028.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Bruns, Axel (2017), "Das Modell The Conversation. ›Academic Rigour, Journalistic Flair‹", Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter, Velbrück Wissenschaft, pp. 78–81, doi:10.5771/9783748926672-78, ISBN 978-3-95832-117-5, retrieved 2021-10-05
  7. ^ Appel, Violaine; Falgas, Julien (2019-07-15). "The Conversation France". Communication. Information médias théories pratiques (in French) (Vol. 36/2). doi:10.4000/communication.10498. ISSN 1189-3788. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  8. ^ Zardo, Pauline; Barnett, Adrian G.; Suzor, Nicolas; Cahill, Tim (2018-02-07). "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016". PLOS ONE. 13 (2): e0192290. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192290. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  9. ^ Annas, Wahid Fahrur; Rizal, Derry Ahmad (2019-06-28). "PEMANFAATAN MEDIA BARU SEBAGAI MEDIA BISNIS". Mabsya: Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis Syariah. 1 (1): 99–115. doi:10.24090/mabsya.v1i1.3153. ISSN 2714-7797.

Some of them are editorials, but others appear to be independent overviews and analyses of impact. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to comments censorship on the site?[edit]

Should there be a reference in the article about the blatant censorship of all comments that the site doesn’t agree with? Or simply not opening comments for the articles that need it the most? It really should be called ‘The Echo Chamber’ or 'The Censorship' in its current state. 14.203.5.209 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct and a section on this should be added, if a good reference can be found. 110.145.148.218 (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the entire platform is partisan (something that is not acceptable for academic institutions to take sides re. political views). When searching the term "Catholic" a dozen articles calling Catholicism problematic and portraying the 0.00003% abuse cases as "institutional", however when searching "Islam" its article after article of how the religion is peaceful and that violence/extremism is only "fringe" and not somehow institutional. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is dust from mines different from normal dust[edit]

Mines dump all the garbage 105.4.2.210 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Conversation_(website)&oldid=1208893976"