So yesterday, one of my supporters offered to create a Wikipedia mention of my petition. Naturally, I was thrilled. It read: Title: Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Prompts a Change.org Petition Against HubPages HubPages Inc. has been under fire for withholding the rightful earnings and money for charity (held in escrow) of writers until they surrender their tax information (including SSNs). As noted above, the IRS determined years ago that HubPages does not need to collect this information. HubPages also imported content (including author identities) from the former Squidoo writing platform without the express permission of its authors. In the meantime, HubPages Inc. has publicly posted these authors' identities and content (with ads and products) and kept 100 percent of the earnings (including Amazon and eBay royalties) from these authors and their charities. On November 15th, 2015, Rose Webster, a former Squidoo author, formally launched a Change.org petition titled "HubPages' Writers are Entitled to All Earnings and Removal of Their Author Content." Unfortunately, within hours, it was removed from the HubPages Wikipedia page. When I looked at the Talk:HubPages page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HubPages I saw that the same editor (that tried to remove facts I submitted in May 2015) had removed it and belittled my (our) petition. My hunch is that Cyhoidbomb (the Wikipedia editor) MAY have connections to HubPages staff and / or executives (or other connected parties). My proof is his or her reference to:"a bunch of angry people who want to shake stuff up at HubPages headquarters." Therefore, I will submit to Wikipedia THIS petition update in hopes that Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, will take notice and act appropriately. I did not realize that the truth was not enough for Wikipedia. According to this ONE editor, it will take the "mainstream news websites" (whoever that is) to "care" before Wikipedia will include accurate, proof-laden content. You be the judge, here is what Cyphoidbomb wrote (and GWatson's ONE response): Title: Removal of petition content In this edit, I removed content about a Change.org petition that was launched against the company for some reason or another that was submitted by a single-purpose account in good faith. We're not here to promote these common petitions, whether they're about fans wanting Invader Zim to be brought back on the air or if they're from a bunch of angry people who want to shake stuff up at HubPages headquarters. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Like any other subject, only when mainstream news websites start to care about this petition and write about from an analytical perspective (i.e. not just press releases) should we care about petitions. Wikipedia is not a breaking news site. We're not here to report every new thing that happens to every subject. A good question to ask when submitting this stuff is, "will anyone care about this in 10 years?" If the answer is "who knows" or "probably not", then the content probably doesn't belong in the article, even if sourced. Per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Cyphoidbomb, The Change.org petition has already been through several checks and balances. This is not "soapbox" material. Witnesses (including authors and charities) have come forward to offer support and additional proof. On Wikipedia, Apple Inc. has included info about "a class action lawsuit in California." The paragraph concluded with "on November 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing each and every claim brought against Apple by the employees in this case." If you feel this Change.org petition is frivolous, why not let the facts "speak for themselves." Once California's attorney general, Kamala Harris, has dealt with this petition, you can update this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwatson2016 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Gwatson2016 Two points: 1) You don't have consensus for the inclusion of this content as another editor (myself) has objected to its inclusion. Per WP:BRD if you are reverted, the onus is on you to open a discussion on the article's talk page until consensus for inclusion exists. I opened the discussion for you. Restoring the content was inappropriate and has been undone. Thankfully there is no deadline at Wikipedia, so waiting for consensus is always an option. 2) I have no idea what argument you're trying to make by bringing up "checks and balances". Again, we're not here to promote petitions, as any yahoo with an opinion can start a Change.org petition. Big deal. This doesn't translate to encyclopedic content. And as I've already said, we're not a breaking news site. As for your Apple example, the references used that make the content noteworthy are two National Law Review articles here and here. These articles describe the lawsuits from an external perspective, not from an internal one. In contrast, the Change.org petition only represents the primary source, i.e. the people who are complaining. So far no external analysis of this petition from reliable published sources has been provided. Reiterating what I said above, "only when mainstream news websites start to care about this petition and write about from an analytical perspective (i.e. not just press releases) should we care about petitions." The mere existence of the petition doesn't guarantee inclusion. Until then, your recourse is to find and include news sites that are reporting on the significance of this subject, or to wait for input from other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Okay then, I'm off to write to "reliable published sources" and "mainstream news websites" then. I don't believe, however, that every Wikipedia entry is held to such standards. Just a reminder, the "about" Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About states: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity." "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are the five pillars. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia; however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing." [Again: It is NOT a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.] "People of all ages, cultures and backgrounds can add or edit article prose, references, images and other media here. What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. What will remain depends upon whether the content is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people, and whether it fits within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source, thereby excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research." "Wikipedia is continually created and updated, with articles on historic events appearing within minutes, rather than months or years." "Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, with articles in various stages of completion. As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired." Thank you for reading this lengthy update. I look forward to hearing from Jimmy Wales and other "mainstream" media. Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays) to each and every one of you and the over 200 charities out there, Rose