Talk:Citizens Against Government Waste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brought to this page as a result of a Google search related to Open Source software, I have no interest in taking a position for or against the content here (not now anyway), but I did notice a few mechanical problems that need fixing. Below I quote two paragraphs from the current text, with my personal comments added in square brackets:

Those opposed to the CAGW criticism ["position" or "argument" would be better], most already irked by CAGW's support of Microsoft, maintained that by not allowing the governor's "Freeware Initiative" to proceed it ["CAGW" or "the organization" would clarify the referent; my brain initially reached back only as far as the nearest singular noun, "initiative"] increased the [omit "the," which sounds non-native here] Microsoft's monopoly (which at that time was at a critical controversial stage) [one can only guess what is meant by this "stage" comment] with their operating system and products ["in operating systems and productivity software"].

Newsforge [link leads to a page with no information], an open-source journalism source, [some piece of text is obviously missing here; this is my original reason for deciding to contact you] and reported, "Despite conceding that every man, woman, child, and dog in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would not actually be forced to use FOSS [why not spell out the acronym in brackets, which would be useful in Wikipedia but not necessary for readers of the original article] for their computing, CAGW stood by its contention that the Bay State's move could give businesses and citizens compatibility problems in exchanging documents with all of the [is "all of the" necessary? If not, use elipses?] state agencies."[8]

This is my first time to "talk back" to Wikipedia. I tried glancing through your advice sections, but don't have time now to do anything but leave this note. Maybe next time... RN

I changed the heading to "Postions and Criticisms" rather than "Criticism/Accusations", this is just a list of views of the organization, albeit likely posted by someone who disagrees with them, page really needs to be cleaned up more, but I don't have time now66.72.215.225 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the reference to "rabid right-wing Republican Alan Keyes" and replaced it with "Republican Alan Keyes." I don't think he has rabies, and that description was pretty blatantly not neutral point of view. I am going to read over the whole article again, and might want to tag it for broad NPOV violations. Huadpe 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged this article for lack of references and NPOV violation. I cite this paragraph as exemplary of the problems in much of this article. "The 47 volumes and 21,000 pages of the Grace Commission Report constituted a vision of an efficient, well-managed government that is accountable to the taxpayers. CAGW has worked to make that vision a reality and, in a little over two decades, has helped save taxpayers $825 billion through the implementation of Grace Commission findings and other recommendations." That reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia. I also fact tagged the $825 billion number, I'd like to see third party verification on that, but don't have the time to investigate right now. Huadpe 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just did a little sleuthing (aka opening a couple webpages) and found that the intro to the article is WORD FOR WORD lifted off the CAGW website[1]. I am doing a full delete of any material that is lifted in this manner for obvious resons of bias and copyright. I added a shorter intro citing both their stated goal and some criticism. Any help in expanding this and in cleaning up the remainder would be appreciated. Also added a bit to the pig book section. I'm wating to finish my cleanup before I untag it. Huadpe 01:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I just went through the first part on a bias cleanup. That part seemed strongly skewed in favor of the group. Next target is the criticisms section which seems slanted against them. It's not nessecary, but while I'm working on this, I'd like to hear from anyone else making changes to the article. Anyone who could write something up on the Abramoff thing would also be appreciated, I saw them mentioned in the NY Times but don't know enough to write the entry on that. Huadpe 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

non-partisan? you have to be kidding me 12.226.237.65 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)