Talk:AllSides

Proposed deletion

Even this acronym proposed this article for deletion on 20:41, October 8, 2023, arguing that "this company fails to meet notability standards and the page appears to be self-promotional. At least one editor has the name of the company in their username." However, this had not been discussed on the Talk page. Their message at the top of the article page has been removed and replaced with the relevant template messages. Please continue the discussion on the proposed deletion in this section of the Talk page. Thanks! Msoul13 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Msoul13, it seems to have enough sources to be notable (and is being cited by GPT-4, which may be a whole other conversation) but I've started addressing some of the self-promotional language, trying to fix undue weight issues and being especially clear about where the power and decision-making responsibilities lie and the political affiliation of those parties given the nature of the business. Also, as a source of journalism that is subject to intense debate on the validity as a source within the Wikipedia community, I think it should remain included, no matter how small or imperfect. Superb Owl (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Superb OwlSuperb Owl and @[User:Msoul13|Msoul13]], thank you for your help here. A good portion of the page, including some content that was added today, seems to be sourced directly from the company's website - the last sentence of the lede seems to be a direct quote. I am fairly new to seriously editing, but this seems to be an unreliable source. What would be the appropriate course of action for this content if another source for this information does not exist? Eventhisacronym (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eventhisacronym, I agree, it's not the best source to lean on and should be treated skeptically when it seems to be backing-up text that might read a bit promotional or is not concrete.

I noticed @Kwoodworth2 is new to Wikipedia and wanted to welcome everyone who is newish (we all are to some degree) and invite you to discuss your recent edits on the talk page. From what I've read, Joan Blades is only a co-founder of the nonprofit spin-off founded 3 years after the most notable part of the organization (the company that puts out the Media Bias Fact Sheet). The majority shareholder of that company is the founder and CEO John Gable, the other co-founder and CTO owns a non-controlling stake (second most notable person), and somewhere below that is Joan Blades, who describing as co-founder feels like WP:Undue weight and seems like spin from the AllSides website. What we can verify is that John Gable controls the company and runs it on a day-to-day basis as CEO. We don't know who the other minority investors are beyond the CTO, but they would notable to include if we can find that information. Superb Owl (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Superb Owl and Eventhisacronym! I started working for AllSides in January of this year. I disclosed this conflict of interest in my Wikipedia profile. Due to conflict, I limited changes to things that were very incorrect. I recently learned how to request updates in Wikipedia Talks when there is a COI! This is great, and I am happy to use this approach now that I am aware. I will be replying to each item as soon as possible. kwoodworth2 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Some major changes have been made to this page that did not accurately reflect the ownership and founding history of the company, or the rating methodology.

Joan Blades had been removed entirely, and the page de-emphasizes Scott McDonald as an equal co-founder. Leading with what John did over 30 years ago as the definitive point for the political affiliation of this company is very misleading, especially when similar articles on Wikipedia, like Ad Fontes, Media Bias Fact Check, and NewsGuard, omit the political affiliation of their founders entirely even when that information has been disclosed publicly.

Deseret News incorrectly wrote that AllSides uses Groseclose and Milyo methodology without quotation or citation. This was discovered with these recent Wikipedia updates. A request has been made for a correction. In the meantime, I can provide multiple other sources that accurately describe the methods.

Thanks again for your help on improving this article Superb Owl and Eventhisacronym! I am also tagging @Msoul13 and Animalparty. They have contributed in the past - hopefully they are able to help improve the accuracy, clarity, and neutral voice of this article.

Lastly, thank you for your patience, as this is the first time I am contributing to Wikipedia in this way! Kwoodworth2 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kwoodworth2, thanks for disclosing your COI and sharing some sources below (which I commented on directly). I updated the Deseret News citation to more clearly attribute the disputed content to the author but beyond that haven't seen anything so far that needs a quick fix absent better sourcing. Superb Owl (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Co-founders

Starting this section to discuss who we can verify co-founded the organization and who are the most notable people associated with AllSides so we can give them an appropriate amount of weight in the article.

We know John Gable owns the majority share (google definition of "Primary owner") and has been CEO from the start.

John Gable appears to have gotten the vast majority of press coverage in the articles used as references on this page. 4/4 note Gable as a central figure, with 2/4 referring to Gable as the "founder." 1/4 articles portrays Scott McDonald as a recruit of Gable's. 0/4 mention Joan Blades as a co-founder or even involved beyond the nonprofit spin-off.

This 2012 article mentions John Gable 7 times and refers to him as "founder" not "co-founder" and does not mention Scott McDonald or Joan Blades: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/AllSides-compiles-varied-political-views-3815821.php)

This 2016 piece in Entrepreneur mentions Gable teaming up with McDonald to start AllSides but does not describe Joan as a co-founder but as someone they teamed-up with later to launch the nonprofit. https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/how-this-startup-helps-people-find-common-political-ground/282812

This 2018 piece in SF Chronicle lists Gable as "founder" of AllSides and doesn't mention McDonald or Joan as co-founders: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Can-lefties-and-right-wingers-find-common-ground-13438467.php

This 2020 CS Monitor article mentions John Gable 3 times but not the other two or use the word "founder": https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2020/0608/Who-should-judge-what-s-true-Tackling-social-media-s-global-impact.

Superb Owl (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough outline. I don't have a lot to add; your work aligns with what I was able to find searching yesterday.

Gable and Blades' TEDTalk appears to confirm Gable and Blades did not meet until after AllSides was created:

GABLE: And that's, in fact, why I started AllSides.com -- to create technologies and services to free us from these filter bubbles. The very first thing we did was create technology that identifies bias, so we could show different perspectives side by side to free us from the filter bubbles of news media. And then I met Joan. [...]

BLADES: I went for this wonderful walk with John, where I started learning about the work he was doing to pierce the filter bubble.

https://www.ted.com/talks/joan_blades_and_john_gable_free_yourself_from_your_filter_bubbles/transcript Eventhisacronym (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and adding that to the discussion. I wanted to note one last thing here, which is company's website seems to be referring to 'co-founders' specifically of the latest corporate entity they created which bought the company in 2023...doesn't change our conclusion as to how to handle this but wanted to note in case of any future discussions. Superb Owl (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The co-founders and board members are John Gable (Republican), Scott McDonald (Independent) and Joan Blades (Democrat).

AllSides Inc. was founded in 2012 by John Gable and Scott McDonald. That company discontinued and its assets were acquired by AllSides LLC in 2016. In June 2023, AllSides LLC became AllSides Technologies, Inc. - a public benefit corporation co-founded by John Gable, Scott McDonald, and Joan Blades.

Sources:

USA Today (2018) https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/29/come-out-political-closet-2018-focus-shared-values-heal-our-divides-joan-blades-column/985727001/

Entrepreneur Magazine (2016) https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/how-this-startup-helps-people-find-common-political-ground/282812

Wikipedia.com | Joan Blades: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Joan_Blades

Pepperdine Graziadio Business School (2023): https://bschool.pepperdine.edu/events/most-fundable-companies/2023

Entrepreneur Magazine (2023):

https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/pepperdine-graziadio-business-schools-most-fundable/459383

AllSides.com | Ownership Information

https://www.allsides.com/about/ownership

Elaboration on co-founders

John Gable (CEO) is a technology veteran and Silicon Valley manager previously working at Microsoft and Netscape, and worked in Republican politics in the 1980s for Senator Howard Baker, then-Presidential Candidate George Bush and Senator Mitch McConnell.

Scott McDonald (CTO, Independent) is a software developer and technology manager formerly of Check Point Software and BitTorrent.

Joan Blades (Board member, Democrat) is a political activist who co-founded MoveOn.org, Living Room Conversations and AllSides for Schools.

Sources:

Concordia (2023): https://www.concordialive.com/AnnualSummit23/speaker/834716/john-gable

Respect and Rebellion: https://respectandrebellion.com/speakers/joan-john/

The Magazine Of Episcopal High School: Spring 2018 https://issuu.com/episcopalhighschool/docs/259837_ehs_spring_2018_web

Entrepreneur Magazine (2016): https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/282812

USA Today (2017): https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/29/come-out-political-closet-2018-focus-shared-values-heal-our-divides-joan-blades-column/985727001/

InflectionPointRadio.org: https://www.inflectionpointradio.org/episodes/2016/9/23/joan-blades-john-gable-bringing-civil-conversations-to-schools

San Francisco Chronicle (2012): https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/AllSides-compiles-varied-political-views-3815821.php Kwoodworth2 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kwoodworth2, thank you for clarifying that this was what you meant by co-founders (only as of this 2023 reincorporation). That was really confusing, and honestly feels quite misleading to promote those 3 as co-founders of an organization that looks substantially the same as the one founded in 2012. In addition, I would argue that even if this is something we think is worth mentioning in the article (which I do not) this feels very symbolic with little actual relevance for the power dynamics within the organization, which is controlled by the founder and CEO of 11 years, so I would maybe mention it once but not mention it in the lead or infobox - just in the section with the latest updates. Superb Owl (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling John Gable the founder of AllSides is factually and verifiably incorrect, no matter what year we are talking about. The original AllSides organization was co-founded in 2012 by equal partners John Gable and Scott McDonald. Joan Blades has been heavily involved in the direction of AllSides for many years, so it was highly appropriate for Blades to be included in the restructuring of the company. (Calling it symbolic is extremely offensive to Joan in my opinion.) All of this is well documented in the sources I shared. Kwoodworth2 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blades is not a founder of AllSides. Her involvement started when the company reorganized years later. Gable effectively owns and controls the company. Everyone else is secondary, including McDonald. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

John Gable and Scott McDonald co-founded AllSides Inc in 2012. That company went out of business and sold its assets. Those assets are now owned and operated by AllSides Technologies, Inc, which is a public benefit company co-founded by John Gable, Scott McDonald and Joan Blades, who also serve as the only three members of its Board of Directors. Kwoodworth2 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Krystal told me the problems y'all are having here on this article, so I thought I would describe in more detail, help sort things out. This is John Gable, one of the co-founders.

The changes added about co-founders was partially but not entirely factually correct, and we want to make sure we don’t state or imply anything that is not accurate or sufficiently referenced. (As an old Netscape person who helped make the code open source - now part of Mozilla - I'm an old super fan of open source and crowd wisdom. I believe in and appreciate honest broker work on stuff like this.)

Scott McDonald is and was an original co-founder of AllSides Inc with Gable. We should not say or imply otherwise.

There are many sources, as well as original incorporation documents, that confirm Scott was a co-founder. Apparently there are some articles (hard to find, we didn’t know they still existed) that inaccurately called John the “founder”, though none that say he was the sole founder. There are many more refer to me or Scott as co-founder. Scott wrote and continues to write the code (or hired and led people that wrote and continue to write the code) that AllSides used and AllSides Technologies Inc uses today. You will see within this Wikipedia article itself Scott’s contributions to it, and his self-identification as a co-founder .

Joan Blades was not a co-founder of the original AllSides Inc. We should not say or imply otherwise.

I appreciate your work to clarify that, but there are important nuances to note to convey the current status of the company accurately, to not say or imply things that otherwise would be false.

AllSides Inc is no longer in business. This is not a technicality, it went out of business - according to the IRS, California Tax Authority, and more - at the end of 2015. It could not pay its bills. Its remaining assets were acquired in April of 2016. AllSides Technologies Inc now owns those assets.

Who are the co-founders of the current organization, AllSides Technologies Inc, which is a Public Benefit Corporation with a separate Board of Directors? AllSides Technologies Inc states that its co-founders are Gable, McDonald and Blades, and that has been published in Entrepreneur Magazine and Pepperdine Business School. There are no credible sourced objections to this fact.

For all the above, there are many public sources that confirm these facts, and if you need more, let us know.

So, how can we convey this history accurately? Let me know what you think of the following:

John Gable and Scott McDonald co-founded AllSides Inc in 2012. That company went out of business and sold its assets. Those assets are now owned and operated by AllSides Technologies, Inc, which is a public benefit company co-founded by John Gable, Scott McDonald and Joan Blades, who also serve as the only three members of its Board of Directors. JohnGable (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@JohnGable, @Kwoodworth2, thank you for your patience as we definitely want to get this right. Cofounder can be a fuzzy, symbolic and self-defined term that I am cautious to include as it can imply a false equivalency in the power dynamic and role of those involved. As far as AllSides Inc. is concerned, the secondary sources portray a CEO/majority owner who recruited a CTO/Minority owner to build the CEO's vision. I am not seeing any issues with this emphasis of notable people from AllSides' founding years (through 2015) emphasizing the most relevant titles (position, ownership stake) over ones with less consensus on their notability (co-founder).

I do have questions about AllSides Technologies Inc. - there's still a lot of missing information that seems more relevant than reapplying a vague term like co-founder (or re-co-founder - still very confusing to me) such as:

1) Who has ownership stakes? How much does each entity own? How has this changed over time?

2) What power does the Board have? Do Board members' votes count the same? How has this changed over time?

3) Who is Scott McDonald? What kind of independent is he? What evidence is there of his political views or actions in the past (besides interning for a Slade Gorton (R) in the 1990's)? Have they evolved over time?

4) Who are your funders beyond the Charles Koch Foundation?

Superb Owl (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@SuperbOwl Lots to unpack here.

Top line, there are a couple helpful areas where clarification or improved phrasing makes sense. That is helpful and we are happy to clear things up.

Otherwise, for more than one month, you have dramatically altered this wikipedia article that completely changes the framing and content from what it was previously, and overall frames the company very differently than 100% (or nearly) of sources. Your extensive edits and additions state and imply things that are clearly untrue or misleading, use unsourced or poorly sourced opinions, ignore very prevalent content and sources that go against your biased narrative, and utilize extensive cherry-picking with blatant bias. {{subst:uw-npov1}} Your overall actions on this page and others also appear to support one competitor in particular, though that is not as clear as the overall bias.

Top-line: AllSides’ non-partisan agenda, multi-partisan team, patented methodology and social good purpose to strengthen democratic systems have been widely and repeatedly reported since our inception (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ), but the extensive edits you continue to make even after we started discussions strongly portray a very different, partisan agenda {{subst:uw-npov1}} that damages the accuracy and credibility of this article, our company, our mission to strengthen democratic systems, and of Wikipedia as a whole.

Despite all of this abundant information about AllSides’ association with the left, center and right, you only cherry-picked and included information that frames AllSides as a partisan organization on the right. You could have easily picked just the left references and framed us as a partisan left company (others have charged us of being on the left). Either partisan approach ignores facts and misrepresents the company and its public benefit mission in support of a stronger democratic society.

One or a few of these errors could be considered accidents or things to work through in good faith, which is how we started. But put together, a different conclusion emerges.

All of this has made it very difficult to continue to assume good faith. We now believe that what you have been doing is probably an example of vandalism  {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}  since your edits appear to be “deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose” by  “changing of such content … without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view.” {{subst:uw-npov1}}

As someone who regularly and publicly, starting in the 90s while I was working for Netscape and then the open source project Mozilla (1), touts the power of the wisdom of the crowd (1) and compliments Wikipedia’s embrace of it, I find it sad to see efforts to undermine it.

If I misinterpreted your actions, I apologize. I’ve spent a lot of time walking through all of your edits, and just can’t see how you came to many of your edits, arguments and conclusions without a very powerful bias or agenda, and it seems too overt to be unconscious. At AllSides, we frequently run into examples where people assume bad faith in each other but it turns out that it was not intentional or the person was just so convinced of their point of view that they could not see anything else. I recognize that some people believe that if you work with people from the left, center and right, that you must be evil and slanted because you include people on the right. (I see the same assumption in the opposite direction as well). If your bias is unconscious, it is still contrary to Wikipedia policies. {{subst:uw-npov1}}

If I misinterpreted your actions, please fix this with a neutral point of view. I’m reluctant to go through the entire article and remove dozens of edits that say things that are inaccurate or misleading since our previous attempts to clarify have been rejected and only seemed to increase the pace of new inappropriate or misleading content to be added. And I do have a conflict of interest by being one of the co-founders. But at the same time, letting blatantly incorrect and damaging content continue is also wrong. I can go through and undo changes one by one, but want to give you the opportunity to review the extensive 3rd party references below and make corrections.

Letting the misleading and inaccurate content continue can cause damage to Wikipedia overall and also to our organization, its social good mission, and the work of so many partners and supporters who are also working to strengthen our democratic society. We can’t let this continue or take a very gradual approach to slowly correct over a long time by debating with what seems to be a very biased actor – that would not be a responsible thing to do for ourselves or for our society’s democratic systems.

Clearly and completely laying out the facts and sources is called for, so this is what I endeavor to do here.

Let’s take the items one by one. This is a long list due to your extensive edits, but I worked to make this as concise, clear (often using the 3rd person for clarity) and well-sourced as possible.

In describing Gable, one of the founders, your edits employ false equivalency …

Your edits all but ignore over 30 years of Gable’s nonpartisan technology experience, which has been well documented (source 1, 2, 3, 4), and instead emphasize, expand upon, and frame his career as being primarily about Republican politics, which he only did for 4 years out of college over 30 years ago. {{subst:uw-fringe1}} Your edits very prominently devote 28 words in the first 2 paragraphs to his work in politics, describing him twice as a “Republican operative” before including 8 words (buried in the middle of a long sentence) about his 30+ year non-political career in technology, in which he worked for notable companies such as Microsoft (where he joined the original Microsoft Office team), Netscape (where he became the team product management lead for Netscape Navigator), and Kavi Corporation, an internet company he co-founded and later sold (1, 2, 3). His leadership role with Netscape is particularly relevant, since it deals with the problem with the internet that AllSides works today to fix, and his first year there is also the year that he first articulated the tendencies of the internet to divide us that AllSides now addresses (source 1, 2, 3, 4).

You knowingly described our methodology falsely {{subst:uw-error1}} …

…in a way that suggests it has a strong partisan slant or agenda. I say you “knowingly” did this because one of the articles you sourced in a different part of this page devoted a large amount of content (558 words) explaining our methodology which you ignored and contradicted. This source also includes links to our detailed explanation and whitepaper that are also independently easy to find on our site. Instead, you led with one sentence from another article that incorrectly described our methodology but has since been updated by the writer with a correction. When we first pointed this error out to you, rather than accurately representing our methodology, you instead kept and led with the false description, along with your partisan framing, and rephrased it to say it was a quote from this author (which the author has since removed), while continuing to ignore multiple accurate and well-sourced descriptions of the methodology (source you used for something else mentioned above plus 1, 2, 3, 4, and podcasts starting at 7:28, 3:45, 18:55). Your edits may qualify as subtle vandalism by “adding plausible misinformation to articles,” but are clearly and knowingly misleading. {{subst:uw-subtle1}}

You cherry-picked {{subst:uw-npov1}} information from one article to misrepresent it {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} and the company…

While in other places you discourage using the company site as a source, in this case you do so extensively but misrepresent it. The AllSides article, “Is AllSides Biased? About Our Biases, Partners and Funding” volunteers information about how it is politically very mixed, that “we have supporters you might consider ‘evil’ from across the political spectrum”, and why that mix is important. You ignore all references to left or center people and funding, and instead only list information that portrays the company as being purely from the right side, clearly misrepresenting the article and the company.

The AllSides article describes its relationship with liberal Joan Blades, a co-founder of MoveOn.org, “one of the largest and most impactful grassroots progressive campaigning communities in the United States.” While this AllSides Wikipedia page used to accurately describe Joan as a co-founder of AllSides for Schools, this detail has been removed {{subst:uw-delete1}} seemingly to downplay her involvement and again, make AllSides appear right-wing. Blades also more recently co-founded AllSides Technologies Inc. and sits on its current Board of Directors (1, 2). (Gable and Blades also did a popular TED Talk together, further demonstrating their strong relationship before they co-founded AllSides Technologies Inc with McDonald.) This AllSides article describes the political work by the other co-founders from decades ago – Gable’s Republican political activities just after college and McDonald’s internship when a student with his states’ US Senator, Republican Slade Gorton. Joan’s political activities are well documented on Wikipedia, were much larger, more recent and much more impactful than the youthful work and internships of Gable and McDonald.{{subst:uw-fringe1}}

AllSides also discloses that at least one of our close partners has received funding from Tom Steyer, a wealthy “liberal activist” and former Democrat Party candidate for President. You ignore that, and then emphasize Republican activist Charles Koch based on AllSides’ disclosure that some of our employees had half of their one year salary paid through the Poynter-Koch Media and Journalism Fellowship. While Koch is from the right, the Poynter Institute has been rated as left of center (source 1, 2), but again you ignore all references to the left and only emphasize any references to the right. While the Poytner-Koch partnership was not originally as clear, the repeated use of cherry-picking misrepresents the source materials and the organization.

You rejected strong evidence and explanation about who the founders of the company are …

…and instead kept and expanded upon your biased and misleading content. Since the company has changed over the years, and different news sources referred to the co-founders in different ways, some of this can be a bit confusing. So we were happy to clarify after you made the changes, and provided a clear explanation that mimicked what was done for Apple Inc, which also changed its company structure over the years with different co-founders at different points.

Years ago, this Wikipedia article incorrectly named John Gable as the sole founder of AllSides Inc. That was corrected long ago with some discussion within Wikipedia edits that also openly disclosed conflicts of interest. The problem comes from the fact that not all news sources accurately described our chief spokesman and CEO Gable as a co-founder, but some listed him as founder (though none describe him as the sole founder). There are many third-party sources (source 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) which describe Gable correctly as co-founder.

We provided very clear information with sourced support describing our co-founders, but you rejected it with an assumption of bad intent. {{subst:uw-agf1}} There is however no room for doubt about who the three co-founders are for the current AllSides Technologies Inc. 100% of all sources (including Entrepreneur Magazine, StreetInsider, and our company site) name Gable, McDonald and Blades as the co-founders. They are also the only 3 board members (1, 2).

Despite this evidence, you rejected these good faith clarifications about the co-founders, overemphasized Gable’s role without citation (other than he is CEO) {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} to the exclusion of others by listing him as “the main founder, CEO, primary owner and investor” prominently twice in two sentences in a row (1st and 2nd paragraphs), and argue that it is possible that our clarifying information and sources are wrong without evidence, basically assuming bad faith on our part in order to maintain the inaccurate and misleading information you added to the Wikipedia article, replacing the previous information that was accurate.

You do not treat competitors equally but support one in particular {{subst:uw-npov1}} while denigrating AllSides …

You added a Criticisms section to AllSides based on a misleading representation of sourced content {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, described it as only about AllSides while it was also reviewing Ad Fontes, and then ignored that same source’s much more extensive and direct criticism of Ad Fontes. You initially added a link to Ad Fontes but no other competitors in the same space from AllSides {{subst:uw-spam1}}, but did not add any links from Ad Fontes to AllSides or to any other companies in the same space. And you did all of this while also making a neutral edit to Ad Fontes Wikipedia page, underscoring your familiarity with both companies.

More detail about the criticisms: In the Criticisms section which you added, you stated “Jake Sheridan from Poynter Institute notes the controversy surrounding bias rating charts in general and recommends readers consider the reliability of sources in addition to possible bias.” Actually, the author was complementary about media bias charts and said  “Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases.” He continued with suggestions on how to use them, namely that “Reliability is critical, too, and the accuracy and editorial standards of organizations play an important role” - not just reliability. This does not seem to be a “criticism” but a recommendation to consider other factors as well. {{subst:uw-fringe1}} But whether fringe or not, it was inaccurately cited as a criticism of just AllSides rather than both organizations covered in the article, AllSides and Ad Fontes. While I do not think any of these are sufficient for a criticism entry for either company’s Wikipedia page {{subst:uw-fringe1}}, adding a whole new criticism section to AllSides based on one sentence and then excluding the Ad Fontes more prevalent, 6 paragraph criticism is clearly biased in favor of one company. {{subst:uw-npov1}}  (Note: Nothing against Ad Fontes, I think we need more companies like our competitor, not less, since we all help strengthen our democratic systems.)

To support a stronger democratic society, we need objective and fair content from places like Wikipedia, which includes fair and equal standards applied to all. These actions undermine Wikipedia’s mission which I think is vital to our society, so should be corrected immediately. JohnGable (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia rules and procedures. A core tenant of Wikipedia is that original research is not acceptable, we rely on verifiable, secondary sources. The citations you provide for yourself, McDonald, and Blades being co-founders are in turn, a sponsored post (an ad, not a reliable source), a news aggregator republishing a press release (a primary source), and your own website (a primary source.) All of these fail WP:NOR. As someone who runs a business about bias in news, you can understand why it is important to ensure that all information has been fact checked by a neutral party, rather than coming directly from the source in question.

Forgive me for a suggestion outside of my duties as wikipedia editor, but as the leader of a business, one option for you would be to work with your press team to find a reputable reporter at a newspaper willing to write about the new governance structure of your company, rather than we wikipedia editors. We could use that citation.

I also encourage you to read more about WP:NOTPROMO

Have a great day! Eventhisacronym (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eventhisacronym I appreciate that importance of avoiding original research and relying on verifiable, secondary sources. The Entrepreneur Magazine post cited above was a repost of the original source, namely the Pepperdine Business School - here is the link to that. As you can read there, this competition included in- depth reviews and analysis over many months, far more than any news coverage, and their program has been around for years. I should have linked that this first - thanks for you patience on that.

I also appreciate the fact that it was fairly recent that AllSides re-established itself as a public benefit corporation, so I understand why Blades was not initially included as a co-founder of AllSides.

Considering that Joan Blades is very much of a noteworthy figure with a detailed Wikipedia page of her own, I don't think it was appropriate to remove her and the third party citations as being a co-founder of our non-profit schools program, or having that fact removed from her own wikipedia entry. Those changes seemed counter to Wikipedia tenants.

Thanks for your help. JohnGable (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I spent a good amount of time trying to find verifiable, secondary sources about AllSides for Schools - what is currently listed is the best I could piece together about the project. Joan and her company are still listed as being involved with the project and producing Mismatch, because that's what the San Fransisco Chronicle and Education Week reported. If that is incorrect, please take that up with the authors of that reporting, not with me. Frankly, based on the coverage, the project as a whole barely meets Wikipedia:Notability.

Once again, your time might be better spent correcting or producing new reporting about your company rather than arguing here.

Lastly, as far as I'm aware, Joan's wikipedia page has never mentioned her involvement with AllSides. I added an unrelated citation to her page once, but otherwise have not been involved there. Eventhisacronym (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

JohnGable, I can see that the "Republican operative" bit is well-supported by Mark Gerzon's book, The Reunited States of America: How We Can Bridge the Partisan Divide. He says on page 30, "In the 1980s, John Gable was a typical political operative, working doggedly in Republican politics". Terry Patten's book, A New Republic of the Heart, agrees on page 377 that John Gable is a "lifelong Republican". Many sources talk about Gable's fervent Republican Party work for Howard Baker, Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell. I don't think this aspect of the Gable career is inconsequential. Folks can and do naturally assume that Gable is still working to advance Republicans issues through AllSides, spreading a patina of neutrality on non-neutral assessments such as pro-war CNN being listed as left wing. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to include work I did in the 80s in politics, for about 4 years after college. It is however misleading to frame that as more important than over 30 years in technology after that, especially considering the relevancy of that work, like at Netscape in the early days of the internet, especially since AllSides is technology based (with patented technology) and focused on solving a technology driven problem of online filter bubbles that prevent people from seeing different perspectives.

Both should be included, in their proper order and proportion. Otherwise, it is misleading and lacks a neutral point of view {{uw-npov1}}. Same goes for Joan Blades (noted above) and Scott McDonald. As for Scott, his internship is only referenced on the AllSides site and was an internship for only 3 months when he was 21. So it is both not significant and lacks a secondary source (a Wikipedia tenant), and therefore does not seem to meet the threshold for inclusion. JohnGable (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your statement that people "naturally assume that Gable is working to advance Republican issues through AllSides" because I worked for Republicans over 30 years ago could more easily be said about Joan Blades (with a much longer, more impactful and consequential political career) to support the Democratic Party, and is blatantly contrary to the perspectives of the sources you list above, like Mark Gerzon's book, and a large abundance of sources I include. The abundance of third party sources for over a decade do not support your perspective or assumption of bad faith in AllSides' multi-partisan efforts, patented technologies and mission to fairly reveal all sides and perspectives.

I accept at face value that you believe that I must currently have a partisan agenda because I worked in Republican politics over 30 years ago, and you probably would react like many others did to the TED Talk that Joan Blades and I did together with surprise that we are actually good friends working together for the common good. But your perspective appears to be {{uw-unsourced1}} or at least {{uw-fringe1}}, but primarily is contrary to one of the Wikipedia five pillars, namely that it should be written from a neutral point of view. JohnGable (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, your idea of the "common good" includes AllSides accepting money from conspiracy peddler The Epoch Times in exchange for a reduced "leans" right-wing re-assessment in 2020 despite their increasingly crazy stories in that same time frame. AllSides entered into a partnership with The Epoch Times to help launder their nonsense, and AllSides crows about this connection, saying "We are hoping to replicate this partnership with other news outlets", likely because it adds much-needed cash flow. AllSides is serving itself, not the common good. The actual common good would be well-served if The Epoch Times folded. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We did not get any money from The Epoch Times, and don't accept any money from any news organization to publish their content. That was described in the very AllSides article you cited above. The Epoch Times did give us a link to by-pass their paywall, and we hope that many news organizations give us the same ability to by-pass their paywalls.

We also listed in that article our work with USA Today and Yahoo News, which are from the left side, while The Epoch Times is from the right side.

As for rating a "conspiracy peddler" or anything they cover, there is deep research (especially by Duke whose researched focused on vaccines) that demonstrate that the best way to combat misinformation, once it is out there, is to discuss what it states and ask the questions – aka show the other perspectives and have an open conversation. Open, balanced, and respectful dialogue is the most effective way to combat it. Ignoring the misinformation or misleading information insults the people who are persuaded by it, gives them no useful information to counter it, and tends to make them polarize more strongly in support of that inaccurate or misleading belief.

Ignoring misinformation often makes it even stronger. By providing multiple sides that are already public, AllSides reduces the spread and impact of misinformation.

But a discussion about the best ways to combat misinformation, or how to rate CNN's bias (we used to be charged with having a left bias when, during the Obama administration, we rated the CNN website as center) is not what Wikipedia edits are for. While our approach to fighting the problems of bias and misinformation may be counter to what you would do personally, I appreciate your perspective more than you probably realize.

Regardless, we are taking very thoroughly researched and data driven approaches to what works best to expose bias and misinformation, to help people get out of their divisive and polarizing filter bubbles, and that is very much for the common good. JohnGable (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JohnGable, this will take me more than one night to sift through and reply to these paragraphs of text and would appreciate your patience and an assumption of good faith efforts for my hope to arrive at a verifiable, fair and accurate representation of AllSides. Thank you for alerting me of the updated Deseret op-ed that discusses your methodology's origins. I removed the sentence right away along with the associated op-ed reference. I also have to ask you to refrain from pretending to divine the motives of volunteers who make edits to Wikipedia. It also does not benefit your case in wanting to resume direct edits of this article from AllSides staff. I'm learning about these rating companies on the fly and editing an article of a competitor does not make me a believer in that product or company.

As far as the history of your employees, you own and run a political company that rates political bias. The political history of your donors and decision-makers seems extremely relevant to this page. It's true it may not represent current political beliefs or biases or even impact your work but if there is additional verifiable information that can shed light on those political beliefs or biases then we would incorporate that into the article. As for wanting us to reference an unnamed organization that has accepted Tom Steyer donation(s) in the past, it seems like a bit of a reach equivalence to an actual organization run by a very political family. Again, more verifiable and relevant information and it would be included, but unfortunately there isn't a lot I'm seeing on your website or others. If you propose more specific well-sourced edits they are also more likely to be incorporated. Superb Owl (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnGable, I also agree that there should not be a criticisms section and have renamed it 'Reception' to provide space for a range of responses including more neutral observations Superb Owl (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnGable, I also found your suggestion not to have 'political operative' twice in a row compelling and removed the term from the lede and did some more copyediting to the body paragraph to mirror edits in the lede that seek to more precisely and concisely describe the nature of the company without as much duplication of content and reduce the possibility of undue weight per your feedback.

I also removed use of the word 'found' or 'founder' or 'co-founder' while the consensus on this page seems to be leaning against the application you have been advocating for. I worry about WP:weasel word with these terms when there are more precise ways to describe the creation and evolution of AllSides. Superb Owl (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnGable I've finished making my way through your comments and the last couple of edits I made include adding positive views of AllSides from two WP:reliable sources to the newly renamed 'Reception' section. Any continued feedback would be really helpful. I did not make all the changes you asked for for some of the reasons cited by @Binksternet and @Eventhisacronym but open to discussing and revisiting any areas you think are still lacking. This is a really important topic and thanks to everyone for the time they have put into these discussions so far - the article seems to be getting much better Superb Owl (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnGable I've also taken your suggestion to look at Apple's infobox and use their template (company infobox template instead of website infobox template) for listing former names to capture AllSides' 3 iterations more clearly. I also used the 'key people' template which I hope will more precisely reflect the importance of Joan and Scott alongside yourself absent consensus on the use of terms like co-founders or board members given the lack of reliable secondary sources (it's also very early to expect a lot of coverage at this point) among other reasons discussed above Superb Owl (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Superb Owl Let me start with some kudos to your edits. You really dug into the input, took it at face value and really worked to improve it. That took lots of time and work, and is the kind of response that I love about Wikipedia - thank you.

While there are still areas that are problematic, you made excellent improvements. This wikipedia page has been dramatically improved.

For what remains, I do still agree that my political background is relevant. But I also think that leading and emphasizing what I did in the 80s right out of college as being more important than my 30+ career in technology, especially since we are a technology company ("AllSides Technologies Inc") with patents and proprietary tech, is misleading.

I think that is the main big thing that remains.

Other lesser items:

You mentioned that Jake Sheridan listed a skeptical opinion from one person/ expert he interviewed (suggesting AllSides take into account reliability and editorial standards, not just reliability - you should mention both aspects of the criticism to represent it accurately), but you left out that Jake also listed that two people/ experts (the same above plus another) "shared praise for the stated methods for rating bias". It seems misleading to present the one worry from one in the article and ignore the positive from two in the same article. (You could call that a "negativity bias.")

The changes from June this year to a public benefit corporation, AllSides Technologies Inc, were pretty recent, so I understand if you want to wait for more 3rd party coverage about the formation, ownership, co-founders, etc before updating that stuff. I including the original and third party sources with more info about that above in case you think that is sufficient to move forward now with more complete information.

Once again, thanks for all the work to repair and improve this article. JohnGable (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

hi @JohnGable, I agree with your Jake Sheridan notes on the relevance of noting the praise for the methodology and importance of bias. Hopefully the edits captured that article better.

As for your technology career vs. your political career, they seem to get equal weight in the sources so hopefully the edits I made noting when you worked at each will help to clear up the point you're making that you worked much longer in tech than politics. Superb Owl (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonprofit spin off

Starting this section to track down what can actually be verified about AllSides for Schools. The current text of the article reads: "In 2015, John Gable, Joan Blades and Scott McDonald co-founded AllSides For Schools, a separate nonprofit project in partnership with the Mediations Foundation. They have partnered with other organizations to provide programs such as Mismatch, a platform to connect students who differ politically and geographically."

The SF Chronicle article cited lists John Gable as a co-founder of Mismatch and AllSides and Joan Blades as a co-founder of Mismatch and Living Room Conversations. It also lists AllSides as a partner organization of Mismatch. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Can-lefties-and-right-wingers-find-common-ground-13438467.php

The NYT Upfront article cited says that AllSides partnered with Bridge the Divide to create Mismatch. https://upfront.scholastic.com/issues/2019-20/042020/building-bridges.html

Neither independent citation mentions the entity "AllSides for Schools." Neither mentions Scott McDonald at all.

The only other independent source I found was this Education Week article, which says AllSides for Schools produced content as part of as a partnership between AllSides, founded by Gable, and Living Room Conversations, founded by Blades. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teaching-the-art-of-conversation-during-a-divisive-election-year/2016/09

Currently, I believe the most accurate change based on the available citations would be: "AllSides partnered with Living Room Conversations, a nonprofit founded by Joan Blades, on educational content through a related organization called AllSides for Schools. Gable, Blades, and their associated organizations have produced lesson plans for schools on how to navigate political conversations and helped create Mismatch, a platform to connect students who differ politically and geographically." Eventhisacronym (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eventhisacronym, I would support that rewrite, especially since it seems the Mediations Foundation may just be the fiscal sponsor, making it non-essential to include. Superb Owl (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Rating System

Current Wording: AllSides uses a "multi-partisan" methodology first developed by conservative professors Timothy Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo.

Request Deletion: AllSides does not use the method created/used/proposed by Timothy Groseclose and Jeffrey Mily. Deseret News got this wrong. AllSides only recently discovered this error when it was used here in Wikipedia. AllSides is talking with Deseret News to make a correction. Please note in the article they published, they did not quote AllSides or provide a source for this claim. According to Wikipedia:  To gauge the bias of the mass media, Groseclose develops another measure, the Slant Quotient (S.Q.). This is a number that shows how often a news outlet cites one or more of some 200 think tanks.” This is not the method used by AllSides, as shown in the sources below.

Suggested Correction: AllSides focuses primarily on online publications and rates sources on a scale from -9 (farthest left) to 0 (center) to 9 (farthest right), breaking these into five categories: Left, Leans Left, Center, Leans Right, and Right. Sources are rated by a combination of methods including blind surveys (where participants don’t know the source of the content) taken by thousands of people of different political biases, and editorial reviews by a multi-partisan staff panel. AllSides staff self-report and disclose their political leaning on their website.

AllSides publishes the bias ratings in a public database, and uses these ratings to produce the AllSides Media Bias Chart. The ratings also appear alongside news articles posted to the website, allowing readers to identify the source’s potential bias.

Sources:

Poynter https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/

Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/04/worse-google-83-news-outlets-bing-homepage-lean-left-zero-lean-right/

The Newsworthy Podcast - Methods described from 3:45 to 4:36: https://www.thenewsworthy.com/shownotes/042322

The Verge (Vox Media) - Methodology described from 7:28 to 8:28:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-politics-and-laws-changing-tech-in-the-us/id430333725?i=1000585590501

Methodology described from 7:28 to 8:28

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-politics-and-laws-changing-tech-in-the-us/id430333725?i=1000585590501

AllSides Media Bias Methodology Page: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods

Kwoodworth2 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Crowd-sourced changes to ratings called "Community Feedback"

First off, AllSides is under a yellow caution flag on Wikipedia; see WP:RSP. Past discussions have compared it unfavorably to Ad Fontes Media's rating which adds the degree of reliability. AllSides has been called "useless" for ignoring reliability and simply gauging left versus right.

Discussions on Wikipedia have also highlighted the problem of AllSides getting swarmed by online voters to change a rating. I have seen this happen with AllSides assessing The Epoch Times as far right in August 2019,[1] then after they got swarmed by 7,000 Falun Gong supporters, they changed their rating to "lean right" in August 2020.[2]

If a potential Wikipedia source can change their assessment based on crowd-sourcing, then we don't use them. For instance, we don't use audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes as those can be targeted by partisans. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Community feedback is not used to rate sources. This feedback is used to determine when a source may need a new review due to changes in reporting. This information is available in the sources I linked above under "rating system." Kwoodworth2 (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no legitimate explanation for AllSides softening their assessment of The Epoch Times in August 2020. The newspaper started spewing COVID disinformation earlier that year, as reported by mainstream media.[3] NBC News said "...by 2020, it became a megaphone for the U.S.’s most extreme right-wing stories." The paper had become even more stridently right-wing, moving farther to the right, in the period leading up to the baffling re-assessment by AllSides. Clearly AllSides has a gigantic problem with community feedback, or they knuckled under to some other kind of pressure. The Epoch Times is quick to sue companies for defamation, for instance, which creates a chilling effect. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources needed?

I'm adding material sourced below that is only referenced by primary sources here for further discussion on whether/how they merit inclusion @Eventhisacronym @Binksternet @JohnGable.

On Scott McDonald's notability, my current thinking is that until his relevance can be gauged by reliable secondary sources, then this is relevant information about him given how little is available. As it stands, confirming his power/stature in this company is challenging with so little secondary or primary material that I have no strong opinions one way or another.

--

Scott McDonald, who interned for Slade Gorton (R) in the 1990s, identified as a centrist and an independent while working for AllSides. AllSides funding sources include the Charles Koch Foundation.

The original AllSides Inc. went out of business in 2015, and in 2016 AllSides Inc.'s assets, including AllSides.com and its mobile application, were purchased by AllSides LLC. In 2023, citing a desire to grow and accept outside funding, AllSides LLC changed its company structure and legal name to AllSides Technologies, Inc. Citing a desire to align with and protect its mission, the company was reestablished as a public benefit corporation. Superb Owl (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I would avoid using primary sources for these claims. Any claims of this type about the company's history or employees would need be covered by independent secondary sources to be due in the article. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

KSFR citation

Hi Superb Owl, I'm having trouble accessing the KSFR radio segment cited in the article. The audio is not loading for me, and the text of the article appears to be broken or incomplete. The archived page isn't any better. However, other radio segments on the KSFR website are playing for me with no issues. Do you have a way to access the cited radio segment so that the source can be verified? — Newslinger talk 00:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger, I cannot verify it either and was wondering whether it was a notable source to begin with and wouldn't object if you felt it should be removed. Superb Owl (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. I've removed it in Special:Diff/1213291639 and Special:Diff/1213292645. The KSFR radio segment probably would have been usable in the article if the audio or text were actually available. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome and thanks for confirming that it would probably be usable if the audio/transcript were found Superb Owl (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Passing mentions in Reception section

If a source simply mentions AllSides without saying anything of significance, it does not constitute due weight and it should be excluded from the article. For example, in Special:Diff/1213305455, I removed the juvenile nonfiction book Breaking News: Why Media Matters (published by Orca Book), because it simply mentioned that AllSides makes a media bias chart and included an image of the chart without providing additional information.

The New York Times article is very borderline since it's a listicle that simply says AllSides "can help" the reader "seek out information from a variety of political perspectives as you read and research". The phrase "political filter bubble" is mentioned in list item #1 while AllSides is mentioned in list item #5. I lean toward removing it.

The other sources in the Reception section have at least a little more coverage, which establishes more weight for inclusion. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove (for NYTimes listicle + juvenile book) Superb Owl (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Removed in Special:Diff/1213430416. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)