| Revision as of 03:06, 27 January 2006 editIronDuke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,087 edits added back in non-drug-use comments filed under drug use dispute← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:07, 27 January 2006 edit undo7265 (talk | contribs)2,690 edits reverted to page by Sdedeo resulting from IronDuke-requested mediation -- all comments are on 'drug use' pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| * (Reminder to all: it is traditional to post new material at the bottom of the talk page. ] <small>(])</small> 17:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)) | * (Reminder to all: it is traditional to post new material at the bottom of the talk page. ] <small>(])</small> 17:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)) | ||
| ⚫ | == General == | ||
| ==NPOV Debate (General)== | ==NPOV Debate (General)== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| This page is the subject of periodic spasms of change (and sometimes vandalism) from first-timers (either to Misplaced Pages or to the Reed page) who think the page is too positive about Reed. The "Drug Use" section (see talk below) is a frequent target, though several other sections get hit as well. The general comment is that the page is POV in being too positive. I have just done a brief survey of about 20 other small college pages, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Grinnell, and many others, and Reed's page is in no way unusual, certainly not in being overly positive. If someone wants to make a serious contribution about, e.g. the curriculum (too conservative?), to politics (too liberal?), or something else that can be based in some sort of objective fact, please feel free to do so. But consistent vandalism in the form of spurious negative commentary does not belong here. NPOV doesn't mean mindlessly adding negative comments until the page seems "balanced". Add facts, not opinions. -- ] 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | This page is the subject of periodic spasms of change (and sometimes vandalism) from first-timers (either to Misplaced Pages or to the Reed page) who think the page is too positive about Reed. The "Drug Use" section (see talk below) is a frequent target, though several other sections get hit as well. The general comment is that the page is POV in being too positive. I have just done a brief survey of about 20 other small college pages, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Grinnell, and many others, and Reed's page is in no way unusual, certainly not in being overly positive. If someone wants to make a serious contribution about, e.g. the curriculum (too conservative?), to politics (too liberal?), or something else that can be based in some sort of objective fact, please feel free to do so. But consistent vandalism in the form of spurious negative commentary does not belong here. NPOV doesn't mean mindlessly adding negative comments until the page seems "balanced". Add facts, not opinions. -- ] 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Recusal== | |||
| Are you on the Board of Trustees at Reed? ] 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My affiliation with Reed (other than that I was a student in the 1970s, and continue to be affiliated with the College today) is none of your business. -- ] 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I believe it is the business of Misplaced Pages. "''Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is ''strongly'' discouraged.''" ] If you are, for example, a member of the Board of Trustees or are employed by Reed or have a vested financial interest in it, then I would ask you to recuse yourself from further edits to the article, especially ones that involve points of contention or controversy. Your comments on the talk page, however, would be welcome, as long as they are civil. ] 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I decline to limit my activities on this page, and stipulate that my writing about Reed does not constitute "autobiography", and further that I am not "primarily responsible" for the College sufficient to create a conflict of interest. Further, IMHO excluding every student, staff, faculty member, alumnus, or other affiliate of Reed would be counter-productive. and it is not called for by the Misplaced Pages guidelines. | |||
| ::::I'm not sure why you put the words "primarily responsible" in quotes. My suggestion is and was that you may have, for example, a fiduciary responsibility to Reed College and, as such, a duty to recuse yourself from this page. Obviously, you are not in and of yourself Reed College, such that your comments could not be strictly speaking considered "autobiography." And yet, the WP policy I quoted remains: "''...editing an article about... your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is ''strongly'' discouraged.''" No one person can be said to "own" Reed and therefore no one person can be accused of promoting his or her own business by boosting Reed in this article. But if, for example, a member of the Board at IBM were to make changes to the IBM article, that would be a violation of WP policy. My suspicion is that this is an analogous case. Although I believe I know who you are I do not wish to name you as 1) you have a right to remain anonymous on these pages and 2) I could be quite wrong about your identity and therefore I would not be inclined to insist on your identifying yourself. However, I ask that you stipulate that you have no financial or fiduciary responsibility for the well-being of Reed College, as that is a clear conflict of interest. If you can honestly do that, I withdraw my request for your recusal. ] 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I put the phrase "primarily responsible" in quotes because it is the phrase that appears in the WP policy statement. Reed is not my business and this is not an autoiography. Other than that, I do not accept your interpretation of the guidelines, and will not rise to your bait. Reed has 1300 or so students, tens of thousands of alumni and parents, 200 or more faculty and staff, roughly 40 Trustees, and thousands of substantial donors. Which of them, in your opinion, should be constrained from participation here, and in which class are you? -- ] 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I had no intention of baiting you. I indicated above what the parameters for participating in the editing of this page were, as per the Misplaced Pages guidelines. I am taking your refusal to deny that you have a financial/fiduciary relationship with the college as an admission that you do. As for my own connection or lack thereof with Reed, I assure you that I have no such relationship. ] 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me add this: I may be in error in my interpretation of the WP policies. Perhaps a way to resolve this might be to seek mediation on the specific issue of whether, for example, trustees may edit articles on institutions they are members of. Is this acceptable to you? ] 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you should strive to correct or reinforce your understanding of the policy before we undertake anything as heavyweight as mediation. Why don't you post on the discussion page for the policy? My refusal to tell you my relationship with Reed should not be interpreted to mean that I have any particular relationship. As a matter of law, as it turns out, college board members are not always fiduciaries for their institutions, so this in and of itself may not even be dispositive. -- ] 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not altogether certain how you mean for me to correct my understanding of policy. Posting on the discussion page would not, I think, be a fruitful way to solve the issues that have arisen between us. Perhaps I can simplify my point a bit here: I, myself, have no interest in seeing Reed succeed, nor do I have any interest in seeing Reed fail. Can you say the same? I have no desire to see "positive" or "negative" facts about Reed included in this article, merely notable facts. My suspicion is that you are too close to the institution to edit in a NPOV manner, but I may be wrong in this. I invite you, again, to mediate this dispute with me. ] 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reed Legends == | |||
| The stuff below does not belong here. It could be part of its own Reed Legends article, if people felt like that was a legit topic for WP. | |||
| ''(Unlike the circumstances of most Reed legends, there are still alumni alive who will vouch for the veracity of the MG story. Specifically, the vehicle's alleged owner claims that while he was abroad playing ] in Europe one summer, several inbrebriated friends thought it might be funny to push his car into the foundation. . . and then could not remove it. Though the story cannot be confirmed, the alumnus still lives in Portland and is still pissed about the whole event.) | |||
| The placement of a copper ] in Eliot Hall is suggested in the blueprints but has not been confirmed.'' | |||
| ] 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| Made a pass over the article and tried to weed out the more transparent examples of POV. There were many, so I'm not going to write about each one but summarize and say that the article looked an awful lot like a brochure for Reed. Many of the comments were entirely unsourced, and some of them would not be appropriate even if they were. If anyone has a problem with any of one of those edits, I'd be glad to get specific. ] 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 06:07, 27 January 2006
- Discussions prior to January 2006 moved to Talk:Reed_College/archive
- January 2006 Dispute on "Drug Use" section moved to Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute
- (Reminder to all: it is traditional to post new material at the bottom of the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 17:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC))
General
NPOV Debate (General)
This page is the subject of periodic spasms of change (and sometimes vandalism) from first-timers (either to Misplaced Pages or to the Reed page) who think the page is too positive about Reed. The "Drug Use" section (see talk below) is a frequent target, though several other sections get hit as well. The general comment is that the page is POV in being too positive. I have just done a brief survey of about 20 other small college pages, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Grinnell, and many others, and Reed's page is in no way unusual, certainly not in being overly positive. If someone wants to make a serious contribution about, e.g. the curriculum (too conservative?), to politics (too liberal?), or something else that can be based in some sort of objective fact, please feel free to do so. But consistent vandalism in the form of spurious negative commentary does not belong here. NPOV doesn't mean mindlessly adding negative comments until the page seems "balanced". Add facts, not opinions. -- Gnetwerker 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
drug use dispute archived
There was a contentious discussion over the "Drug Use" section of this article; it has now been resolved. The archive of that debate can be found here: Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute. The consensus paragraphs were agreed to and I replaced them (as well as removing the NPOV tag, per agreement) in this edit. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (called in as part of medcab.)