The philosophy of Pro-Animal Wikipedians is to ensure that all their edits are factual and reliable, in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’d actually argue that these edits are important in providing a more balanced article that takes into account a wider variety of considerations (like animal welfare).
A good example (I can’t confirm whether this is an instance of PAW edits) is the Assured Food Standards page, which documents consistent instances of animal abuse on Red Tractor Assured farms. This is arguably more representative than a page without these abuses documented, and I think it would be wrong to label it as propaganda. It actually provides a more nuanced perspective on the article’s subject.
The philosophy of Pro-Animal Wikipedians is to ensure that all their edits are factual and reliable, in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’d actually argue that these edits are important in providing a more balanced article that takes into account a wider variety of considerations (like animal welfare).
A good example (I can’t confirm whether this is an instance of PAW edits) is the Assured Food Standards page, which documents consistent instances of animal abuse on Red Tractor Assured farms. This is arguably more representative than a page without these abuses documented, and I think it would be wrong to label it as propaganda. It actually provides a more nuanced perspective on the article’s subject.