Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TallMagic (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 26 September 2007 (→Proposed GAO Paragraph: some thoughts on GAO info and WP:DR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Higher education Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Calm Down

A couple points.

A) This Misplaced Pages article is a reference article, and it belongs solely to Misplaced Pages, not to any other editor, individual or institution.

B) As a reference article, its pretty far short of life or death.

I suggest you (TallMagic, Rkowalke, Orlady) take a break from editing this article, while it is protected and afterwards. Read up on WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV and edit some other articles. Your goal should be to contribute to the encyclopedia, in a manner consistent with WP policies. Post an WP:RfC for this article, and get an outside view of these issues that it seems you will never agree on.

In the mean time, calm down and try to be concise, clear and polite in your comments for the sake of the article and the editing process. Avruch 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you might consider archiving most of the arguing above on the basis that it doesn't contribute to the future status of this article. Best to start over with some fresh perspective. Avruch 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a good idea to archive active topics. I've never seen that done before. What do others think? TallMagic 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its generally considered unproductive. I didn't actually do it here, but it seems like it might be warranted given the unproductive nature of the existing debate. Avruch 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There was already an archive 1 indicating consensus of prior agreement to archival. That Avruch indicated it was a good idea coupled with an additional archive already present suggested a pretty good idea for starting the page over. I think it wipes the slate clean and affords opportunity to focus on editing rather than the interesting past. I liked the idea...

Rkowalke 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for Specific Changes & Discussion

By no means am I trying to mandate the format for this talk page, but perhaps it will serve you and the article better to post proposals for specific changes here and a short description of your reasoning.

For instance:

A proposal to restore the comprehensive list of degree/concentration offerings.

Common to other articles. While other article content doesn't demand or exclude content from this article, inclusion of information does not really harm the article. It also presents an opportunity for compromise.

A proposal to include additional background information, e.g. founders, mission, current operators, current enrollment, prominent graduates etc.

The article as written lends significant weight to controversies and criticism but lacks comprehensive information about the institution itself, assuming such information is available.

Avruch 03:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm supposed to be on a wiki-break, but here I am anyway. Because Warren National is not a typical university, efforts to populate its article with the kind of content found in most university articles are unlikely to be successful. For example, there's no sense in trying to create a section for the school's athletic programs, because there aren't any. Sourcing is also a serious problem. Other than the material disseminated by the school itself (which is extremely sparse compared to what's available for the typical university), most available information is about the controversial aspects of the school. As a result, I believe that all participants would agree that the controversy is necessarily a significant part of the article's content.

There's plenty of info that could be in the article if sources could be found. For example, one seemingly simple, but elusive fact I'd like to see in the article is the date when the school changed its name. This East Stroudsburg University press release tells about a faculty member at ESU receiving a PhD from Kennedy-Western in August 2006. Was that before the name change, or was the press release out of date? Where is the name change documented? --Orlady 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree Avruch. We should add the comprehensive degree offerings inasumuch as other universities do the same. And we should begin stylization under WP:UNI as well. There is plenty of information to support WP:UNI styling. While as Orlady mentions there is not comprehensive availability of data as compared to some other institutions, there is enough data to make this WNU page much better than it is today (glass half empty or glass half full).

Rkowalke 11:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Avruch, when the article lock has expired I propose that either yourself or another neutral party edit the article to conform with WP:UNI format. Piercetp 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rkowalke's statenent as well Piercetp's that Avruch, or another neutral party, should edit the article to insure its comformance with the WP:UNI format. Taylor W. 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert with the subject, but I'm happy to assist with the evaluation of specific sections and language for inclusion. Avruch 14:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed GAO Section

As was mentioned in the archived section, the GAO section needs some meat-back-on-the-bone. I added the investigator information and another statement on the GAO report by a WNU representative. My working notes are on my User:TallMagic, if you would like to reference it.

ref in article prior to this section

GAO Investigation

The findings of an investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine whether the federal government had paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited postsecondary schools were presented in 2004 to a U.S. Senate committee. "On the second day of the hearings, the panel heard from a former employee of a diploma mill, Kennedy-Western University in California, and a committee investigator who had enrolled to get a master’s degree in environmental engineering from it." The former employee, Andrew Coulombe, testifying to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, described his feeling that his work there was unethical and summarized it thus: "I can tell you that there is no value to a Kennedy-Western education. Anything you learn there can be learned by buying a book and reading it on your own." The investigator, Coast Guard Lt Cmdr Claudia Gelzer, testified that WNU gave her life experience credit towards a master's in environmental public policy. WNU waived 43% of the course credit required for the degree based only on her application. She testified that WNU didn't check any of her claimed work experience. With 16 hours of effort she was able to earn 40% of the total coursework required for her master's. “As for my first-hand experience with Kennedy-Western courses and passing the tests, I found that basic familiarity with the textbook was all I needed. I was able to find exam answers without having read a single chapter of the text. As for what I learned, the answer is very little. “ As a result of the scrutiny, 463 federal employees were disciplined or terminated for using dubious degrees that were paid for with Federal tax money.

Kennedy-Western was not invited to testify before the Senate. The university's Director of Corporate Communications, David Gering, stated to The Oregonian, "We clearly believe that we are not a diploma mill and have an academically rigorous program." Mr. Gering also stated to the The Times of Northwest Indiana, in response to the GAO report, "...the government report has lumped a legitimate school in with less credible schools." "Jason Booth, who identified himself as a representative for Kennedy-Western after the hearing, said the information presented at the hearing was "hearsay" and was based on a few isolated incidents."

References

1. ^ duplicate of reference already in article
2. Lawmakers consider legislation to close diploma-mill loophole, Government Executive, May 12, 2004
3. http://www.gcn.com/print/23_11/25894-1.html
4. http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&HearingID=176&WitnessID=633
5. http://www.davickservices.com/Some%20Officials%20Not%20What%20They%20Seem.htm
6. ^ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04771t.pdf
7. http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/08/05/news/wyoming/843f046c71bb1dfa87256ee60003f34c.txt
8. http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2004/12/03/news/porter_county/725a7c21e7f48dcf86256f5f000adb44.txt
9. http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0504/051204d1.htm

The above is certainly more fair and balanced than originally seen, but I do not agree this writeup needs to be changed. I do agree this section needs to be removed altogether.

My concern relative to WP:UNI is I'm not seeing other histories of legal action as a theme for input in other WP university webpages. As I understand the intent for a university encyclopedic entry (WP:UNI) is to express the background and nature of the school, not all the swirling controversy surrounding it, which can be addressed in other venues. Adding in legislative history instead of academic history serves to continue the nature of controversy and for this WP WNU page it appears unnecessary. While I am unable to speak for the society of WP, I believe the intent of this WNU page is really to identify the university, not engage in whether the university should be there or should not be there in society, or whether it is legitimate or not based on a voluntary system of accreditation. WNU is legitimately a university under U.S. law - that it has not submitted itself in the past to voluntary accreditation does not lend itself to placing controversies on its pages that are knowingly inflammatory and are themselves only revolved around nonaccreditation, which is not an illegality of any U.S. law although the states may choose to make it mandatory as Wyoming has recently done and under which WNU has applied for accreditation.

Since KWU is listed within the contents of the report, some believe this should be included in the WNU page, but KWU was not on trial here because if it were, then the officers of the university would have been called to address the nature of concern. Since they were not, and upon review of the report, it appears the report's intent was to deal with payments of funds to unaccredited universities, which was illegal for federal funds. The report also addressed senior government employees with unaccredited degrees, which appears to have been another limitation of employment for them under federal law. By including the report and parsing out the specific testimony relative to KWU, we simply inflame passions, whether some regard that rightly or wrongly. And this incitement to inflammation seems unnecessary for this encyclopedic page as well as the prcedence desired by WP:UNI, which suggests by acceptable format that this is not an intention of WP. Further, the archival history reflects the nature of the inflammation caused and we can presume this will occur in the future. We have a responsibility to reduce or eliminate such inflammatory edits where we are able.

I recommend we remove the GAO section entirely from the WP WNU page.

Rkowalke 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statements presented in the previous post by Rkowalke. This is a reasonable argument. If this GAO section needs inclusion into the WNU article, it should be balanced and that is not what I see in any of the previous edits. If it must be included in the main article, there should be less dialogue about legality, restrictions, and the testimony of witnesses before the Senate Committee. It is sufficient to mention only the GAO report with its referenced source and the statement by the school's Director of Corporate Communications. Taylor W. 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a brief summary of this information should be included in the article. If there are other investigations or conflicts with regulatory bodies, perhaps they should be combined in a 'Regulatory Issues' section or something else similarly encompassing. Avruch 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The GAO investigation is very strongly represented in the body of reliable sources. Just because a publicly well discussed issue doesn't have a category in the WP:UNI outline it does not mean that it shouldn't be covered. The argument that the GAO investigation should be covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages doesn't make sense to me. The GAO investigation covered significant and relevant information on WNU. That WNU information is well documented in the reliable sources and should be represented in the WNU article. TallMagic 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the detail presented is very germane to WNU. It should be very interesting information to many that might wish to look up WNU in Misplaced Pages, e.g., potential employers looking up WNU based on a candidate's resume, potential students researching WNU, alumni wishing to learn more about their school, or people just curious about WNU for any number of reasons. Of course the information is readily available in probably dozens of reliable sources but the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to mine the reliable sources available and build an article with complete references so that the Misplaced Pages reader can more easily dive into further research for whatever specific area interests them. TallMagic 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is stated above, "Further, the archival history reflects the nature of the inflammation caused and we can presume this will occur in the future. We have a responsibility to reduce or eliminate such inflammatory edits where we are able." This seems to argue that we should leave important information out of Misplaced Pages so that editors don't get upset. Not only that it seems to assert that we have a responsibility to avoid article edits that might inflame other editors. This is not a valid argument. The first concern of all Wikipedians should be the quality of the article. Which means the first concern is WP:V and WP:NPOV. Personal happiness is not relevant when it comes to deciding what should go into the article or not. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. TallMagic 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Taylor, I just reread your comment, regarding your point, "it should be balanced". I think that is a wonderful idea. what balance information are you suggesting? I mentioned once before about a seminar on distance education a few years ago where KWU presented their Blackboard software (IIRC). I couldn't find any reliable source on it using Google. Could you (or someone) perhaps ask on the WNU chat forum if someone might know of a reliable source for this that we could use? If you can find any other reliably sourced information then that would be great also. TallMagic 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed GAO Paragraph

The findings of an investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine whether the federal government had paid for degrees from diploma mills, including data and testimony related to KWU/WNU, and other unaccredited postsecondary schools were presented in 2004 to a U.S. Senate committee. The investigator, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Claudia Gelzer, testified that WNU gave her life experience credit towards a master's in environmental public policy. WNU waived 43% of the course credit required for the degree based only on her application and descriptions of prior coursework and military training. She testified that WNU didn't check any of her claimed work experience. With 16 hours of effort she was able to earn 40% of the total coursework required for her master's. “As for my first-hand experience with Kennedy-Western courses and passing the tests, I found that basic familiarity with the textbook was all I needed. I was able to find exam answers without having read a single chapter of the text... As for what I learned, the answer is very little. “ Kennedy-Western was not invited to testify before the Senate. The university's Director of Corporate Communications, David Gering, stated to The Oregonian, "We clearly believe that we are not a diploma mill and have an academically rigorous program."

I also changed the reference to the testimony of the investigator to the Senate website instead of the political publication originally referenced. Please let me know what you think of this proposal for the GAO section. Avruch 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with TallMagic's edits on the GAO section.

Point of clarification regarding my "other venues" comment: when I said other venues I meant "other" venues such as the world wide web, not necessarily wiki venues.

I also disagree we need a regulatory section as that isn't the point of this WNU page. Regulation is not the basis for this WP WNU article rather the nature of the institution is the basis; that of education. And that subject should be the focus. WNU is not a university because of regulation or legal actions, it is a university because of its intent to educate. Other university's no doubt have encountered negative actions in their past, yet a regulatory section listing those actions is not mentioned in their WP page. I think the whole GAO section should be removed from this page and I cite the intent of WP:UNI as precedence as well as the university webpages I've viewed on WP that indicate we need to focus on the educational aspects of WP WNU rather than the legislative. Just because there is plenty of controversial information on KWU/WNU does not necessarily mean it needs to be included in the WP WNU page. I think we need to keep the focus of the page germane to the subject matter, which is that WNU is a post-secondary institution.

Consequently, I recommend this section be taken to mediation in order to obtain third party input and all of us work it out there. I think it will help me to be a better wikian as well as for all of us. We can all present our sides and work that issue out with those who have no background with this page nor any of its volatility. Plus, it would be good to test that process out and see how it works and its benefits.

How does everyone feel about taking this GAO section to mediation? It can't hurt...

Rkowalke 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that mediation for this section is required quite yet. Its certainly a possibility, but there are other steps in the dispute resolution process. Not having edited this article prior or during the bulk of the dispute, I'm attempting to offer a WP:Third opinion. Avruch 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avruch. Let's rock the third opinion and see what happens. I don't know the whole process so thanks for putting that on the page.

Rkowalke 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it appears third party WP:30 is not an option for this reason:

If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active Disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.

It seems we have more than two editors involved in this dispute putting this into mediation territory. Evidently the best place at our juncture is the mediation cabal per the requests for mediation page WP:RFM.

Rkowalke 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Mediation Cabal WP:MEDCAB page to wit:

Mediation is purely voluntary. All interested parties must be willing to accept mediation. If any interested party does not accept mediation, we cannot help.

Is everyone willing to accept mediation?

Rkowalke 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically we'd be skipping RfC. There was a related WP:RfC, but it was an RfC for user conduct.

Avruch's proposed changes seem fine to me. It actually is one of the compromises that I proposed in one of the archived discussions. That was a potential compromise, I thought, based on Rkowalke's argument that the Andrew quote was misleading. Although if I recall correctly, there was never a response to that proposal. TallMagic 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If Rkowalke is saying that we must go to the dispute resolution process then my understanding is that we need to go to RfC for the article. The previous RfC is tangential to the article. Before we do that I would like to hear from Rkowalke that he's read WP:V, WP:RS and agrees with those Misplaced Pages policies. If that is not the case then I don't see value in an article RfC. I also would like to see a concise cogent argument from Rkowalke as to why the whole GAO Investigation Section should be totally deleted from the article. Especially if any of my arguments in response had any effect on his thinking. Thanks, TallMagic 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that a third opinion is not valid, more methods trying to avoid escalation are what should be strived for. Escalating too quickly is a common error and what is likely to cause a rejection in a future asked for escalation. My perspective is that Avruch's third opinions have been reasonable and I appreciate his assistance. TallMagic 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... don't think we're skipping any RfC since that RfC as you mention was established for allegations of user conduct. In this case, we're following the dispute resolution process because my recommendation is to remove the entire GAO section. My rationale is already written previously and well thought out and cogent enough as compared to everyone elses rationale. WP:V and WP:RS are not applicable to my rationale for removal of the GAO section as there is no dispute of the GAO report regarding either WP:V/RS - not sure why that is being brought up since it was never disputed; the GAO report is both verifiable and reliable as a report written for the two reasons the report states.

Based on what I'm hearing then, we are in agreement to accept mediation. I will proceed with the dispute resolution process by going to the mediation cabal and activating that process as soon as I have time. Thanks all.

Rkowalke 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, I would like to try negotiating longer. As an argument for continuing to negotiate, please recall what you said about listing the states being totally unacceptable and when you finally mentioned why we simply broke the states with enrollment restrictions out separate from the illegal and other restrictions category. I would like to try to utilize Avruch's gracious assistance longer. I would like to be assured that you have read and agree with the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I think the way to look at dispute resolution is that we're all in this together. We all assume that everyone's first goal is making Misplaced Pages and this article as good as we possibly can make it. Based on that we should each consider each escalation in the dispute resolution process a personal failure. Please let's solve this issue here and now. If you're totally convinced that all of that is a complete and total waste of time then I believe that we need to attempt an article RfC before going to the mediation cabal. TallMagic 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not me TM. I've experienced your RfC and I don't like it. So when you and I get involved in a dispute here I'm going to mediation. This dispute is not going to get solved here - as I recall above you began desire to change this section again when we previously agreed to leave that section in as it is today. Now as I think about under WP:UNI it just doesn't seem to fit and I desire third party input. Working with you before on this section caused your RfC treatment of me under which I had as much or more validity of concern that you or Orlady. I want the GAO section taken entirely out and you want it in and with "more meat" as you say. It will never end. The first archive that used your first name, now TM, reflects the continuing nature of this page. Further, the Mediation Cabal is no indication of personal failure, rather I think it will be productive for both of us. The dispute resolution process is no personal failure either and I'm glad it's here. Disagreement is no personal failure, rather it is a healthy part of living in a free society. Mediation frees people up to see what non-interested parties have to say in a matter and I like that because it is a part of what makes WP work. Quite frankly, the Mediation Cabal was a suggestion from your RfC engagement meaning I'm doing what your RfC engagement recommended so not sure why you engaged a process you are not desiring to complete. Everything taken together indicates this is a good idea. Further, I'm not convinced yet that I'm dealing with distinct personalities around here as they revolve around you and the mediation cabal will help me with that.

Rkowalke 11:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One violation that can get one's editting privledges blocked quickly is revealing information about fellow editors that may be considered private by that person. So I suggest you Misplaced Pages:Avoid_personal_remarks. Please discuss the article not your fellow editors. TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I never agreed to the current pointless, uninformative, white washed version of the GAO section. Just because I'm not interested in participating in an WP:Edit war over this section does not mean that I agree to it.

1st revert: 22:57, 18 September 2007

2nd revert: 23:47, 18 September 2007

3rd revert: 00:18, 19 September 2007

4th revert: 00:39, 19 September 2007

Warning: 01:32, 19 September 2007

5th revert: 00:20, 20 September 2007

TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said that disagreement was a failure. What I said was escalating to the next stage of the dispute resolution process is the sign of a failure. The failure to come to agreement in the previous stage. Of course it is much more difficult to come to an agreement when the parties have different goals. My goal is producing the best article that I can, using Misplaced Pages policies and guildelines as my yardstick and compass. Escalating to the next stage of the dispute resolution process in order to better learn Misplaced Pages and become a better Wikipedian is not a valid reason. Becoming a better Wikipedian was the purpose of your RfC. The suggestion out of that was that you should read WP:V and WP:RS. Have you read those policies and do you think that you can fully accept those policies? In particular, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source."TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Avruch is a third party. So, you've already received input from an uninvolved third party. You seemed to have totally dismissed his input without even a comment? What we need to concentrate on is making the article the best it can be using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines as our over riding consideration. WP:UNI is good but only when it is not in conflict with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It is not intended to be used as an excuse to censore information from the articles, as an excuse to white wash and censore important facts about a subject, facts that have been covered in countless reliable sources. Mediation would be called for in the next step of your RfC, if for example, you continued to refuse to accept WP:V and WP:RS which seemed to be the concluding consensus of that RfC. There has not been an article RfC for the GAO Investigation section.TallMagic 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Someone want to edit the correct information into the infobox, along with any additional information available, so that when protection is removed we can paste it into the article? Avruch 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great idea Avruch - are you taking ownership to prepare the infobox?

Rkowalke 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any of the required information right at hand, I presumed one of the regular editors might have it more readily available. If no one else is able, I'll see if I can find the relevant data to put in. Avruch 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Lawmakers consider legislation to close diploma-mill loophole, Government Executive, May 12, 2004
2. Cite error: The named reference gazette was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&HearingID=176&WitnessID=632
4. Cite error: The named reference gao was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/08/05/news/wyoming/843f046c71bb1dfa87256ee60003f34c.txt

• Start-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles