This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
The following tables list grants made by the Arnold Foundation as of February 2017[update]. For each row, the recipients are shown in order of descending total grant amount (for grants considered part of that row). The top ten recipients by are shown by default, and more recipients can be shown by clicking on "More recipients". For grants given "up to" some amount, the upper limit is used.[1]
The content above is 100% sourced to the website of the foundation. This is an abuse of Wikipedia per almost every part of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhost for the foundation or anyone else. We are not a catalog to record every grant given by the foundation. WP articles, per every policy, are meant to be sourced to independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Many thanks for starting this discussion! I'd like a few details from you to make this discussion more productive: (1) "This is an abuse of Wikipedia per almost every part of WP:NOT" is very vague to me, and I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say. I also think saying "it violates a lot of things on this very long page" is not very useful for those who believe the tables should be kept, because it allows those who want to remove the tables to change the reason each time. Could you please enumerate all the parts of WP:NOT you think the tables violate, with reasoning for each? (2) In your original revert edit summary you cited WP:PROMO, but you did not specifically bring it up here (although it is in WP:NOT); do you believe the tables to be in violation of this or not? (3) You write "WP articles, per every policy, are meant to be sourced to independent, secondary sources". How would your views on including the tables change (direction and magnitude) if the information can be sourced to independent secondary sources? Riceissa (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The key aspects of WP:NOT that are relevant are WP:NOTEVERYTHING (what Wikipedia is actually for), and the following aspects of what it is not for: WP:PROMO (which includes WP:NOTWEBHOST), WP:NOTCATALOG specifically #7. I went down to the ground here (what WP is for, and what it isn't) because that is the key principle. I cannot imagine that there is any independent source that discusses all the grants, and putting them together in a table would just be WP:SYN which we don't do here. This level of granularity is just not encyclopedic.
I have not yet mentioned WP:UNDUE and should have. Per the NPOV policy we assign WEIGHT based on what independent, secondary sources say, and this huge pile of content sourced solely from the organization's website is UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been substantially edited by an undisclosed paid editing company (see Yoodaba socks) as well as their IP socks on proxies. Placing {{UDP}} tag for review. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is honestly one of the worst articles I've ever seen. The intro is unnecessarily verbose, the history section not only contains information that is not historical and included in the initiatives section anyway, but is also completely out of order and repetitive at points. The initiatives section reads like a paid advertisement (which, gathering from the template and talk page, it literally is), and there's no mention whatsoever of articles which question the intentions of the foundation's efforts (e.g. with "school choice").
The abundance of citations and random order that some things are in makes it difficult to edit without breaking multiple citations, but I intend on sitting down at some point in the near future and taking a proper scalpel to this article. Whoever the LLC paid to edit it was NOT worth the money. It's a total mess. Kakurokuna (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marquardtika, what about this article is so promotional? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 3 years now and I know there is still more for me to learn. I've edited a lot of pages and try to help keep the platform as neutral as possible. My perspective is that this article in particular does not have promotional content, but I would also love to hear your perspective on how/why you see it as promotional. I haven't really addressed page issues/flags in the past but I would appreciate this as a learning opportunity for me to grow as an editor. Any advice/helpful tips you could offer would be appreciated. Thank you Catnapper100 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for starting a discussion. Off the bat, I noticed some WP:PEACOCK language like "a wide range of areas" "a wide range of studies" and "expert research". This type of language sounds like it should be on their own website, not in an encyclopedia article. Overall the article reads like a brag sheet of their accomplishments, how much money they have doled out, the impact they have made. Just kind of a laundry list of stuff they have done. I don't see anything about their lawsuit against their former president, for example. I'm sure there is more coverage out there that provides a broader look at the foundation, beyond just listing out individual grants they have given. Marquardtika (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am an employee at Arnold Ventures and would like to declare my conflict of interest. When I saw that there was a tag on the page for Promotional content, I thought it was time to see if I could help rid our page of promotional and inaccurate content. I have been reading the rules of Wikipedia to try to make sure that I follow the correct procedures and am transparent in my efforts. I would like to make some suggested edits to remove the Promotional content and ensure all information is factual. AL at AV (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for disclosing your COI. You can go ahead and make suggested edits here on the talk page and I'm happy to take a look. Marquardtika (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
1) I would like to propose we remove this sentence: “The organization has funded a wide range of studies and programs in health care, education reform, criminal justice, and initiatives in open science and metascience.[2]” from the first paragraph of our page as it could be perceived as promotional.
2) Remove “efficiently and” from the end of the 2nd sentence in the History section, as it can be perceived as promotional.
3) Remove this sentence from the 3rd paragraph in the History section: “Since 2008, the organization has invested more than $1 billion in philanthropic efforts, focusing on using expert research and statistical analysis to drive systemic social change.[7]” given the numbers are outdated and could be seen as promotional. And remove this from the 5th paragraph: “In 2018, the organization donated $204.3 million.[10]” for the same reason.
6)And to remove the 2nd sentence: “By November 2020, the organization had committed $48 million to the partnership.[15]” which could be seen as promotional.
Hi again, editors. I’m following up from May 7th to see if there are any concerns with me implementing the proposed edits I shared earlier, particularly the Partnerships subsection of the Areas of focus section and sourcing updates. I’m happy to adjust the language or approach based on your feedback, but wanted to check if I have permission to proceed or if there’s anything else I should revise before doing so. Thanks again for your time and input. @Marquardtika @Catnapper100AL at AV (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AL at AV: I took a look and I think we're moving in the right direction. Thanks for your work on this. I think we should try to expand the lede to give a summary of the article and of the major giving areas. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Marquardtika (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]