Talk:PortsToronto

Toronto Port Authority employees "sanitising" the article

Curious how the Toronto Port Authority employees can spend their working time "sanitising" the article on the TPA in Wikipedia.

Have a look at the following links, note the user name of the person making the edits and compare to the following info from the TPA website.

Trying to revert boosterism edit by TPA employee

Boosterism edit by User:kdickson

Keith Dickson,

Systems Manager, Information Technology

(Contact information removed. It's just unwiki to list a user's phone number and email address, especially as part of a dispute. - Banyan Tree 14:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also note that you have used material verbatim from the Toronto Port Authority website, specificlly quotes from these pages. Port page Airport page. This may constitute copyright infringement unless you can confirm that use of the material is permitted by the relevant TPA authorities. Dabbler 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that it is unfortunate that you want to identify individual authors. ID'ing authors, even POV-pushers, is not on. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Responses to this personal attack can be found on the above author's discussion page.(Dabbler)I can confirm that the use of TPA material from www.torontoport.com is permitted by the relevant TPA authorities.Kdickson 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Kdickson and Themepark How about you two agree to take a holiday from this frenzy of activity? It's getting really annoying. Dowlingm 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- It should be noted that I'm a public citizen - with no connection to this agency or any of the stakeholders mentioned in the article. Kdickson is a government funded employee who works for the Toronto Port Authority. I'm only concerned about truth - he's concerned about the future of the agency. User:Themepark -- Well, themepark, your spat with the TPA employee has made it to NOW magazine which was only too happy to crow about it, despite the fact that your views seem as NPOV as his. I live in East York and support the airport but because of the latter view I try and keep my edits to the published/technical facts and away from opinion and spin. So should you, so should kdickson. It's that, or there will have to be a request for a 30 day lock of the page because you guys can't keep a semblance of objectivity. Who wins then? Dowlingm 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Data

I thank you for your neutrality Dowlingm. I heartily agree to remove or allow edits of any article I may contribute to the Toronto Port Authority page if any inaccuracy surfaces or a non-neutral point of view is displayed. Unfortunately Themepark's agenda seems to be to discredit the Port Authority at any cost, including the truth. I have asked several times for any verification that can be supplied for some of his edits. He refuses to comply. If anyone seeks verification of the data in any of my edits I will be most happy to provide them. The Port Authority in Toronto has been around in one form or another for over 200 years, it will exist long after any of us retire. My concern is not for the survival of the Port Authority, it for the truth. Too many people have perpetuated untruths about the Toronto Port Authority for too many years. Inaccurate information must be corrected. I do not do this as a representative of the Port Authority. I do this as my small contribution to the honour of the good people serving Canada through the Toronto Port Authority.216.221.81.98

Unfortunately, the TPA doesn't serve the people of Canada, it only serves itself. Atrian 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 -- Do these sound like the comments of someone with NPOV contributions to make on this issue? --Duke 02:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your opinion you are entitled to it. If you have to misrepresent the truth to convince other people to believe you, you risk your credibility. --Kdickson 12:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This site isn't for corporate spin, it's designed to create an honest look at the TPA - and not sugarcoat their activities. This is encyclopedia - not a brochure for the agency, and I dislike an employee spending their day adding spin to a not-for profit website. - Themepark

As an encylopedia, shouldn't it contain facts rather speculation? By basing the majority of the "informative" TPA article on biased views and speculation, you are doing a dis-service to the internet community. Duke 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There seems to be some issues concerning who is correct on this page. It seems that Kdickson is biased towards the Toronto Port Authority, Themepark and a few others are biased against it, especially in the section on "Controversies". To me it doesn't seem fair to remove a complete section just because you disagree with it. I think everybody should just take a pill and calm down. So I am labelling this article in dispute until somebody can rule one way or the other. Bombycil 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Kdickson 12:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News article about this Wikipedia entry

It points out a number of errors: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/reid050306.htm -- (unsigned comment by 70.130.150.31)

That's true. This article makes Wikipedia look bad. I fixed one of the factual errors earlier this week but there are others which need to be addressed. The trouble is that since this article apparently deals with a controversial topic all factual changes need references or citations. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the journalist who wrote this article shows obvious (if not overt) bias towards the TPA. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. Atrian 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. Journalists tend to be pro or anti. What's important is not which side of the fence he has chosen; it's whether what he says is true or not. If he says that there are errors in the article, we can and should check the errors he mentions. If he's spinning a line, we'll soon know. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article and the news item. I have made a couple of changes to the wording addressing some of his comments however, some of the assertions in the journalist's piece are either his (and the TPA's?) opinion or speculation (6, 9 and 10) or have already been changed since he noted them (the usual trouble with dead tree media). Dabbler 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, if there is any question about the truth in any edit I have made please let me know and I will provide the verification.Kdickson 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KD. One improvement that springs to mind: I know that there is some dispute on how "important" the port is in terms of cargo. In order to give a fair picture I think that it would be worthwhile including the tonnage figures and the dollar value for cargo in 2005 rather than just stating that the tonnage is "not as great as many other ports" and has "increased by 28% since 1999". Would that be possible ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]