Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hoary (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 28 March 2013 (→"Quality Assurance Commission": gets mysteriouser and mysteriouser). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Education List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Shorter lead

I have again shortened the lead with this edit. This will, I think, give enough definition of what the list comprises, while allowing the reader to click-through to non-list articles for full context and lengthy discussion. There is no reason to invite this to become a content fork with the substantive articles. The list is controversial enough as is, hence the partial protection (though it shouldn't be so controversial since everything is cited, after all). Novaseminary (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I again reverted Orlady's reinsertion with this edit. Orlady, please put this up for an RfC, or at least say something here before doing it again. Novaseminary (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you were an unregistered user, I would interpret your removal of sourced content from the lead section of this article as vandalism. Indeed, it has all the attributes of vandalism. In this edit, which you repeated twice in less than half an hour's time, you removed 4-1/2 sentences and 3 WP:RS references -- a net reduction of ~1300 bytes of content (which would have been more, except that two of the deleted references were preserved in a later section of the article). You left the lead section with just 3 sentences and one source. Moreover, you replaced some of the material you removed with a "citation needed" template. That is decidedly not how we go about improving the encyclopedia.

Providing an informative lead section for a list is not content forking. Note that WP:Content forking states: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." List articles should include relevant contextual information sufficient to make them "work" as stand-alone articles -- particularly when the subject matter can be controversial or is highly nuanced, both of which situations apply to this article. Indeed, introducing a potentially controversial list with a couple of sentences that say little more than "this is a list" sometimes can be a form of WP:Tendentious editing, which I'm sure is not your intent.

Looking over the history of my interactions with you (notably, when you split List of Independent Fundamental Baptist educational institutions off from Independent Baptist, deleted most of the associated article text and removed all of the redlinks from the list), it strikes me that you have some misconceptions about what makes a good list in Misplaced Pages. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Featured list criteria. It calls for "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." (It does not say that the lead should be as short as possible and should be devoid of meaningful information that possibly could be included in some other linked article.) Pick a few Misplaced Pages:Featured lists at random and look at the leads -- I think you will find that they are all thorough, informative, and thoroughly sourced -- I daresay that some of them are longer than some of the entire articles that you have been anxious to split up. (While I'm citing WP pages, I also suggest that you take a look at WP:Splitting. Note that it does not suggest that it is acceptable to split off the entire content of the parent article and leave a minimal stub behind -- rather, it talks about WP:General overview articles that link to more detailed articles about subtopics.

You have commented elsewhere about your goal of creating featured articles. If you truly are interested in creating featured content, please peruse the pages I have referred to -- not to mention other WP policies, guidelines, and essays. And please refrain from deleting sourced content for the sole reason that it makes the article longer. As you are probably aware, Misplaced Pages's WP:Featured content does not have a category for featured stubs -- and turning articles into stubs is not a noble goal at Misplaced Pages (unless you are removing WP:copyvios, banned editors' contributions, or similarly unwelcome content).

As near as I can determine, your only objection to those edits of mine -- the ones that you deleted twice -- is that they interfered with your objective of keeping the article lead as short and content-free as possible. As I've explained above, that objective is not consistent with the objective of building a quality encyclopedia. Accordingly, I intend to restore the content that you deleted.

I have to tell you that I think it likely that you will soon be reporting me for edit warring (again), and I submit to you that if you do so, I will interpret your behavior as WP:Gaming the system, but I have no idea what your motivation might be for doing that. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, finally some discussion, more than a paragraph per sentence removed! Yet, it's little more justification than "I prefer it this way." In any case, I still think the UNESCO setences are problematic (WP:UNDUE). "Examples" strike me as generally OR or UNDUE problems. If there was a way to quantify the most common types of faux accreditation, that would seem a more WP:V-complaint way to go. Since neither Orlady nor I own the article, perhaps other editors will weigh-in. Novaseminary (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well-sourced examples of the different types of entries on a list are a valuable part of a list introduction -- they help to define (and defend) the list contents and the inclusion criteria. Moreover, discussion of illustrative examples is one of the elements that creates the kind of "engaging lead" that a good list needs.

Having dealt with several different diploma mills that claimed legitimacy due to some sort of UNESCO affiliation (not to mention dealing with their WP:SPA editors), I was very interested to discover a rather long passage in the cited source about the various different ways that the "UNESCO" name is abused to suggest legitimacy, and the fact that UNESCO has been trying to combat this practice. Not only is this an interesting and valuable piece of information, but I think that including the UNESCO name on the list while excluding the background information from the article would be irresponsible. Given UNESCO's positive profile in the world, merely adding the name "UNESCO" to the list, accompanied by a cryptic footnote to the source, would detract from the list's credibility with users and could be deleterious to UNESCO's reputation. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't it go next to the UNESCO entry, though, since that is that entry that needs context? That would avoid the UNDUE problem by placing it entirely in context. And of course, the fact that you have had personal experience with the issue makes it closer to OR; you didn't come across the example because it is necessarily the most common or illustrative. It is interesting in part because it is different than the others, not illustrative of them. Novaseminary (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The information provides context for the entire list, not just the fact that UNESCO is on the list. I found the information in an excellent article about the general topic of accreditation and higher-ed quality assurance, where it was used as an illustrative example and discussed at some length. It is not a unique situation. There are other apparently legitimate nonaccreditation organizations that third parties have misidentified as accreditors for the purpose of deception (such as the United States Distance Learning Association), but it happens to be one that is very well documented by a solid source and that will be meaningful to most readers of the article. It is not practical to expect that this Misplaced Pages list could reliably document the specific situation of every entity on the list (for one thing, that would quickly get into legalities), but the beginning of the article can explain that there are multiple reasons why entities are listed, and it can illustrate those reasons with well-sourced examples -- of which UNESCO is one. --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above about UNESCO is beyond me! We have UNESCO mentioned in the introduction, but why is (was) it on the list? And we have a reference that talks about its' views. (Indeed, that info is valuable to the intro.) But quite explicitly it says it is not an accrediting body. So off it goes!--S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

Do all of the redlinks belong? I have to imagine that just making a list of inrecognized accreditors--which certainly justifies putting the org on this list--does not make the org meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Per WP:LSC (discussion of "Creation guide" lists), shouldn't only the independently notable orgs have redlinks? Novaseminary (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they belong, for several reasons. Most of these are widely documented on the internet, but largely not by sources that can be considered reliable. Many of them are also linked from other Misplaced Pages articles about the entities that claim accreditation or other affiliation with them (for example, see the redlinks in Bircham International University), and the "what links here" feature associated with those redlinks can be enormously helpful (as a tool) to those of us who have maintained those articles. Many of these have had articles created in the past (often those articles were adverts) that got deleted for various reasons (sometimes more than once). Most of them potentially could become topics of articles in the future, when someone stumbles upon enough appropriate sources, so they can legitimately be considered potential articles that do not yet exist, per WP:CONTEXT. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But all of them? Surely you do not think that each of them represents an article that "will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable" (WP:REDLINK), do you? Novaseminary (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lacking a crystal ball, I am not in a position to guess which of these redlinks are going to turn out to be notable (due either to newly published coverage or existing sources that contributors locate) and which of these are never going to be heard of again. Websearching on many of these names is frustrating, as the words and phrases in names like "Accrediting Council for Colleges and Schools" are very common, resulting in many false positive hits. I can say that, due to the "what links here" feature, the existence of the redlinks in this article (and related articles) has saved me and other contributors (probably including OTRS volunteers) many hours of aggravating research when addressing evidence of accreditation that was presented on pages such as Talk:Bircham International University, Talk:Warren National University, Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health, and Talk:Washington International University (to name a few that I recall as having been the sites of contentious discussion about the status of a organization identified as an accreditor -- but please not that my memory may not be 100% accurate). Additionally, when I happen to notice that one of the redlinks on this page turns blue, I generally look at the article to see if it's a solid article or a promotional advert.

There are a few here, such as American Association of Drugless Practitioners, that I have a hunch are somewhat more likely to get an article than some of the others, notwithstanding history such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Association of Drugless Practitioners, but Misplaced Pages isn't about hunches.

If you have concern about the presence of redlinks on pages such as this one, why don't you take your concern to Misplaced Pages talk:Red link? --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would raise it at Misplaced Pages talk:Red link, but it is not that big of a deal, and I think that WP:REDLINK and WP:LSC already speak to the issue anyway. I am very sympathetic to the time-saving nature of the "what links here" benefit. Would it work as well if we were to put a copy of this list with redlinks into project or user space (per WP:LSC) and then knock out the redlinks here in the main space version (except maybe those that one of us eds really do think are currently WP:N notable)? If that could maintain all of the benefits and leave the mainspace version cleaner and fully complant with LSC and REDLINKS, that might be worth doing. It would also allow other useful notations to be added right next to the entry on the project/user space version that could save even more time down the road, perhaps a note at listings of orgs that have had articles deleted per AfD or speedy, for instance. It would also make it more parallel to the recognized org list which does have some redlinks, but I would argue as each are recognized they meet WP:ORG and therefore could/should have articles right now. Another thought I had was to create redirects for each of the redlinks pointing to this list. But my gut tells me that could cause other problems. Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. And by "knock out the redlinks" I just mean de-wikilink them, not remove them as listings. Novaseminary (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of the list

A few days ago, another editor created two subcategories for the list:

• Organizations misidentified as offering accreditation
• Religious or theological accreditors lacking academic recognition

The new structure implies that these two groupings are legitimate organizations that are on the list due to special situations -- and that the rest of the entities on the list are not legitimate. Unfortunately, the basis for this classification is (at best) original research. In all but a few cases, the only sourced information that we have regarding the entities on this list is:

1. Someone (usually either the organization itself or an entity that claims it is accredited by them) has identified them as higher education accreditors. And:
2. They are not recognized higher education accreditation organizations.

There are many different possible reasons why an entity might appear on this list. Some probably are completely nonexistent (made-up), some are accreditation mills, some are legitimate organizations that are not engaged in accreditation but have been misrepresented by third parties, some may be legitimate organizations that are engaged in some sort of accreditation but are not accreditors of higher education, some are accreditors of religious reliability but not of educational quality, and some may be undertaking to do a quality job of higher education accreditation in spite of not being recognized. In the case of the majority of entries on this list, there is no authoritative, reliably sourced information identifying which of these reasons applies to a particular listed entity. This is why the part of the lead section of this article has essentially been a disclaimer -- text that explains (in other words) that the mere appearance of an entity on this list does not indicate any conclusion regarding its legitimacy.

It appears that the "religious or theological" subcategory of the list was created primarily on the basis of inference from the organization's name. Unfortunately, that cannot be defended as anything more than original research -- and, in fact, it is likely that at least a few of these entities are either made-up entities or accreditation mills. (Fraudsters engaged in misrepresentation have been known to misrepresent themselves using words like "interfaith" or "Christian" or "Bible".)

As for the "misidentified" list, it includes only UNESCO, apparently based on the source that I added to the lead section of the article a little while back. I made a particular point of listing it as an example because I am reasonably sure that there are several entities on this list that have been misidentified, but I have not seen an authoritative reliable source that states both that the organization is a reputable entity that is not engaged in higher education accreditation and that it has been misidentified or misrepresented as an accreditor. For example, I am reasonably sure that the United States Distance Learning Association and International Association of Educators for World Peace are reputable non-accreditation entities that appear on this list only because they have been misrepresented, but it would be WP:SYN for me to state that in an article. Breaking out a list of "Organizations misidentified", while leaving these organizations (and probably some others like them) in the master list of organizations implied to be illegitimate, besmirches the reputation of these organizations.

In view of the above concerns, which I consider to be very serious, I am reverting the edits that created the separate lists. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The besmirching of UNESCO, USDLA, IAEWP, etc. occurs when they are lumped into the overall list. They deserve better. (Are they not legitimate organizations?) If not a separate section, then at least a notation next to their listing which tells the reader that they do not hold themselves out as an accreditation organization. Mention of this fact in the introduction is hardly adequate.--S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The content of this list-article is based on reliable sources that have identified the entities as unrecognized higher education accreditors. In many cases, the sources do not provide details as to why the entity is identified as such. To remove a few specific entities from the list (or to annotate the list entries with a notation that they are legitimate organizations not engaged in accreditation, but were misrepresented as accreditors by a third party) because we are kind-of-pretty-sure (based on looking at a bunch of other sources) that the entity was falsely accused would be an application of original research. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think an important point is missing. There is a difference between an "unrecognized higher education accreditation organization" and an organization which is NOT a "recognized higher education accrediting organization." Most of the list contains the former. UNESCO and USDLA are the later. (In this regard they do not belong on the list!) To illustrate, if I established the "Srich32977 Institute of Academic Accreditation (SIAA)" my organization would be an unrecognized higher education accreditation organization because my institute would say something like "This is not a recognized higher education accreditation organization". Or, if I did not post such a disclaimer, some other entity would tag my organization as such. In either case, SIAA would go on the list. But if I established the "Srich32977 Institute of Academic Excellence (SIAE)" in order to promote, say scholarships, SIAE would not go on the list. HOWEVER, if SIAE said "The SIAE is not a 'recognized higher education accrediting organization'" then my organization would have to go on the list because it was self-identified as such! By failing to make the distinction between unrecognized and not recognized, we end up with UNESCO on the list even though it, based on WP:RS -- UNESCO itself, is not an organization which is recognized as a higher education accrediting organization.--S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that your gripe is with the title of the article, Srich. I've wrestled with alternative names that would fully explain the scope of the list, but have not been able to come up with anything less awkward than something like "List of entities that lack recognition or authorization as higher education accrediting organizations but have been identified as higher education accreditors." I've looked at the various lists that are cited as sources, and note that all of them have titles similar to this article. Accordingly, I think it is best to stick with the current title, but clearly explain the scope in the lead section. It is rather common for Misplaced Pages list-articles to have titles that do not fully define the scope of the list, so this would be consistent with accepted practice. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely NO beef with the title of the article. (Where this idea comes from escapes me.) Indeed, the article is most valuable and I have endeavored to improve it. I do have a beef with the inclusion of some of the organizations. As mentioned above, UNESCO is not, Not, NOT an organization that says "We are an 'unrecognized higher education accreditation organization'." Nor do they say "We are a higher education accreditation organization." There are three criteria for inclusion in the list. 1. "as identified by the organizations themselves" -- UNESCO does not fit for the reason just given; 2. "government authorities in their respective countries" -- we have no citation to a government authority that says UNESCO is a recognized or unrecognized higher education accreditation organization; and 3. "other independent authorities" -- Lantero does not say UNESCO is a recognized or unrecognized higher education accreditation organization. UNESCO (and others I suspect) should come off the list. (Replace it with SIAA!) --S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources we rely on for most of the content in this article do not distinguish between (1) organizations that engage in accreditation with appropriate approval/recognition and (2) organizations that do not engage in accreditation but are identified by as accreditors by diploma mills or other institutions lacking accreditation. With rare exceptions -- notably UNESCO, we have no means other than original research to identify the organizations of type 2. For example, I have seen documentation regarding diploma mills that claim International Association of Educators for World Peace as an accreditor, but I cannot verify that IAEWP didn't "accredit" them in some fashion. Accordingly, it is best to list them all, but with prominent disclaimers. --Orlady (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a brief discussion of UNESCO, and any others like it, right next to the listing alleviate both concerns (OR and unjustified/unintentional besmirchment)? By this I mean, state right next to a listing what the RSs say, in UNESCO's case that other orgs have fudged what UNESCO is. If the RSs are silent as to why or how, so is the list. That would allow the list to remian a list of orgs that 1) anyone has claimed is an accreditor as reported by an RS (whether the group itself concurs, disagrees, or doesn't even know) and 2) such group is not recognized as such. Novaseminary (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We already have some of these distinctions in the list. E.g., "International Association of Educators for World Peace (Includes the international organization and national affiliates in individual countries. Although some unaccredited institutions may have claimed accreditation from this organization, it is not engaged in educational accreditation nor is it an authorized accreditor.)" and "Distance Education Council (DEC) (connected to the operator of Saint Regis University) (not to be confused with the legitimate Distance Education Council recognized by the Indian Department of Education )" UNESCO (which as a RS to distinguish it from this besmirching inclusion) and others should have such notations. --S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Any such annotation that appears in the list (or in footnotes) would need to be fully supported by sources -- not including synthesis by Misplaced Pages contributors. (Those "not to be confused with" entries are essentially disambiguation notes, so they do not require the same level of sourcing.) Ideally, organizations that we think are legitimate groups that have been misrepresented by unethical outfits (like International Association of Educators for World Peace) would have articles linked from the list, so that readers with a concern could read the article and reach their own conclusions. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I removed the note from the entry for International Association of Educators for World Peace, after researching its history. I found, to my embarrassment, that I had added the note on 10 March 2008. I can't figure out what reference support I had for the note, other than a remark in my edit summary to the effect that I had found schools claiming it as an accreditor. It is listed in the Google online excerpt from Bear's book (which, BTW, I suspect is no longer the 2003 edition) as having "no listed telephone." However, http://www.iaewp.org/ContactUs.aspx lists a telephone. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've created a stub article for International Association of Educators for World Peace, so it's no longer a redlink. I did not find any indications that the organization has ever represented itself as an accreditor, but I have a hunch (this is totally from "reading between the lines" -- one of the purest forms of original research!) that it has encouraged some marginal institutions to promote themselves by advertising a connection with the organization. --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Michigan List

I'm afraid my vague tag on the michlist reference is buried in the footnote, so I'll add a notation here. What I'd like to know is what office in the State of Michigan is publishing the list. While the list says the bodies listed are not approved by US ED, e.g., DoE has approved bodies not on the michlist, who in Michigan is preparing the list and where does their info come from? Perhaps it comes from Misplaced Pages! If so, then it fails the WP:RS requirement to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Also, the latest rendition of the list is dated 8/13/2010.)--S. Rich (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking this one step further, I've looked at the Michlist and matched with wikilinked entities in the article. Based on info available in those articles, and using WP:COMMON to evaluate info gleaned from the entities themselves, I have WP:IAR to tag those particular entries as dubious.--S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And in further thinking about this, I see that Michlist has included various international or foreign bodies not approved by the US ED. But ED does not endeavor to evaluate any international or foreign bodies. (Probably they have no legal authority to do so.) If this is the case, then including any non-US institutions on this list simply because they are not ED (or CHEA) listed is improper synthesis. (Moreover, the Michlist fails as a RS.)--S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That PDF is published and updated by the State of Michigan Civil Service Commission. It is linked from this Civil Service Commission webpage. Although the heading on the list implies that it is limited to entities not approved by CHEA, I don't see any evidence that it includes valid non-U.S. accreditors. None of the non-U.S. bodies on the list are entities that I've ever seen on lists of entities approved by cognizant government authorities for accreditation/authorization of higher education. --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Elsewhere on this page (to a limited extent) and more extensively at Talk:Accreditation mill and Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18#Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations, User:John J. Bulten has alluded to a perceived absence of inclusion criteria. I infer that his main concern is with this list article.

The current criteria for inclusion are described in the lead paragraph. Here are the relevant excerpts:

• "entities that are engaged in higher education accreditation or have been identified as being accreditors, but that lack appropriate recognition or authorization" - This scope includes organizations that are engaged in accreditation without the recognition or authorization required in the relevant jurisdiction, plus organizations that someone else has identified as being engaged in accreditation, but that don't have the authority to engage in accreditation.
• "as identified by the organizations themselves, government authorities in their respective countries, or other independent authorities" - This describes the types of information used to determine whether an entity belongs in this article. If the organization says it offers accreditation, but lacks official authorization to engage in accreditation, that's sufficient basis to list it. On that same basis, if "accredited" educational institutions say their accreditor lacks official authorization, I consider that sufficient basis to list the accreditor. If a government authority, such as the U.S. Department of Education or the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization or the Republic of Liberia National Commission on Higher Education, identifies the organization as one that is an unrecognized accreditor, that's sufficient basis to list it. As for "other independent authorities", they may include nongovernmental organizations (such as CHEA), governmental education agencies in other jurisdictions (such as information that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization may publish regarding accreditors outside the U.S.), international organizations (such as European Union education agencies), WP:RS periodical publications and news media, and published works (regardless of the medium of publication) by authors with acknowledged expertise on the topic (this includes, for example, John Bear, Steve Levicoff, George Gollin, and Allen Ezell).

If sources conflict regarding the status of an organization -- for example, if the State of Michigan says it's an unrecognized accreditor but CHEA says it is recognized, then obviously the article editors need to make a judgment call or else annotate the listing about the conflict between sources. (In the example, I'd trust CHEA over the State of Michigan, but in most cases an annotation is appropriate.) However, if one source says it's an unrecognized accreditor but other sources have no information about it, it still belongs on the list.

Regarding entities that might not actually be engaged in accreditation, but appear on a reliably sourced list of unrecognized accreditors, a contributor's hunch that they might be falsely labeled is nothing more than original research, and not a reason to exclude them from the list. Additionally, it is not up to Misplaced Pages contributors to investigate the detailed story underlying a source's identification of an entity as an "unrecognized accreditor"; if there's a source that explains that the entity was falsely accused or otherwise documents the basis for a listing, that information belongs in the list (either in a text annotation or a footnote), but a lack of detailed background information is not a basis for removing an entity from the list.

One final comment: My own preference (based in part on my experience with Featured List Candidates) is for the inclusion criteria to appear at or near the end of the introductory section of a list article, rather than in the lead sentence. I think it is more effective to provide background information before stating the list inclusion criteria, rather than stating the criteria before giving the reader the background they need to understand what the criteria mean. User:Novaseminary disagrees with me on that point and created the current sequence in October. It appears to me that the change in the structure of the introduction reduced clarity regarding inclusion criteria; if others agree, I suggest that you take the matter up with Novaseminary. --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC:Is the discussed GetEducated.com article credible to be used as a Reliable Source?

Is GetEducated.com article credible enough to be kept included in the discussed Misplaced Pages article as an RS? Francheese (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is particularly for reference 15 citing the following article of geteducated.com

http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-accreditation

This is a source with no author name and no date of publishing and clearly fails the following policies of Misplaced Pages:

1. WP:SOURCES

The Misplaced Pages in its policy of “Reliable sources” (WP:SOURCES) defines what count as a reliable source by clearly mentioning:

“In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.”

This source website page has just provided a list with the only logic that “NONE of these accrediting agencies are recognized as college accreditors in the U.S. by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the U.S. Department of Education”.

Firstly this logic of analyzing an accreditation body for fakeness will essentially turn all other countries accreditation bodies into fake accreditation mills as according to this only US accreditation bodies will be regarded as genuine. Secondly, no evidence or logic of how this list has been compiled is given. There is no argument, no scrutiny and nothing that could substantiate the presence or absence of a particular association from this list.

2. WP:NOTRELIABLE

The Misplaced Pages policy on questionable sources (WP:NOTRELIABLE) clearly define sources that are NOT reliable and questionable as below:

“Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.” The source qualifies completely on the above as there is no basis for checking the facts is given and apparently there is no meaningful editorial oversight in compiling this list. The geteducated.com website which is posing as a watchdog for education industry is taking large number of paid advertisements from education industry including for-profit online universities and colleges. Thus there is an obvious and apparent conflict of interest due to this revenue generation mechanism where total revenue is being generated from these very educational institutes. This makes this source highly questionable and unreliable.

3. WP:SELFPUBLISH

The other Misplaced Pages policy that describes unreliable sources is regarding Self-published sources (WP:SELFPUBLISH). This policy clearly states:

“For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.”

The source (geteducated.com) is a self-published website. Its content on the source web page is never published by any reliable third party publication. It is a commercial website purely aimed at marketing its sponsors and writing positive articles about them. There is no author name in any of their articles and hence it is impossible to determine whether the author is an expert or not however, it could be safely assumed that he is not as the site clearly avoided mentioning his name. This all points towards the fact that the source is from a self-published website.

4. WP:EXCEPTIONAL

This source is also in complete violation of Misplaced Pages policy that “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”(WP:EXCEPTIONAL). The policy clearly states that:

“Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; • challenged claims that are supported purely by Primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended. • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a Conspiracy to silence them.”

The geteducated.com source article has made an exceptional claim about the credibility of an association like IAO by calling it completely fake agency. This is a big shocking claim which is not covered by any mainstream source ever. It is only made by this self-published website having no author. This “exceptional claim” is not supported by even a single source let alone “exceptional sources” that are required to substantiate such a sweeping statement.

Due to the above this reference should be removed from the page and as a result all names based solely on this source should be removed. I appreciate if the arguments in favor or against are given by quoting specific Misplaced Pages policy as without that the whole purpose of creating policies will be defeated. (Scorpiosame (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

Scorpiosame seems to be saying the same thing over and over. I'll address by number:

1. Of course we want RS, and sources vary in the degree of quality. Academic is best, but that does not preclude other sources. The article sets forth a number of criteria by which organizations can be included in the list. Indeed, if the organization itself says it is not recognized we accept it (in seeming contradiction to the SPS guideline.) And this article covers international organizations, which mean that USDE & CHEA criteria have applicability. Also, since UNESCO does not recognize such organizations, we can note that the organization simply claims UNESCO accreditation. (I do think the article criteria could be set forth in a clearer fashion. Perhaps a bullet list would help.)
2. The organization complained about does not have a poor reputation. (In other words, it is reliable in accordance with no. 1, and allegations that it has a poor reputation are not supported.) If it has a poor reputation, then Scorpiosame should set forth the basis for this in accordance with WP:BURDEN.
3. This is not a SELFPUBLISH issue. We are not using geteducated.com to describe geteducated.com. SELFPUBLISH does not mean we use material from another source that relies on geteducated.com. Compare, the New York Times publishes a lot of stuff. It is not a SPS. Nor do we look for other sources that happen to use NYT material.
4. geteducated.com might be making assertions about IAO, but those assertions are not so extraordinary. Perhaps there are other sources that talk about IAO. If there are, do they support or contradict geteducated.com? Such info would help use analyse the EXTRAORDINARY issue.

Finally, it seems that geteducated.com is, in fact, a reliable source. It sets forth policies about advertising and Vickie Phillips has credentials that are verified by independent sources.

--S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to the "extraordinary claim" argument regarding IAO... IAO has an impressive-looking website, but there is nothing particularly extraordinary about calling an entity with an impressive-looking website "fake" -- particularly when essentially all of the Google search results for that entity are pointers to its websites, facebook page, and websites of organizations whose sole claim to legitimacy is their relationship to the entity in question. I did find one recent wP:RS news article that discusses IAO, and I will be adding it as a source. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

S. Rich please provide a clear rebuttal to the arguments I have stated. I am not repeating the same thing. These are 4 separate policies of Misplaced Pages that are clearly violated. The point is that geteducated.com is not reliable especially the page referred in this article. My request is to please argue with specific policy points as I have clearly listed and I will again clarify them in the light of your discussion:

1. Regarding WP:SOURCES please specify what factors were considered by get educated before compiling that list. Have they set out any criteria or any research they have done? Have they analyzed facts, presented evidence, arguments etc? Nothing has been mentioned and it’s a blatant violation of this policy. Is there even a name of the person writing that article or compiling the list? Kindly be specific with your argument by referring the specific conditions of this policy.
2. WP: NOTRELIABLE is not about poor reputation but it is about poor reputation for checking facts. Also it is about lack of meaningful editorial oversight and apparent conflict of interest. Isn’t there an obvious conflict of interest as they are taking advertisements from the very same institutes they are rating? I haven’t seen such an obvious conflict of interest. They are labeling all other accreditation bodies not recognized by CHEA as “Fake”. Please see the heading on the page. They are not giving any logic or reasoning for compiling the list. Do you think there is any editorial oversight in that article?
3. Self publish is also when your sponsors publish for monetary gains through you. There are advertisers of geteducated.com who do not have any negative ratings or reviews. Is this a coincidence? The Western Governors University advertising through the largest banner on left panel on every page of geteducated.com is rated A. (http://www.geteducated.com/profiles/show/online-degrees/western-governors-university/school-of-educationundergraduate/118/6469). Ironically this is always the case with all advertisers. Aren’t the advertisers publishing their own reviews? Definitely in such scenario they are publishing negative reviews of their competitors as well thus making this website a self published site in essence. There couldn’t be a better example of a self published website.
4. Calling an organization “Fake” is definitely an extraordinary assertion. The heading of the page says “fake agencies…. This by all means is an extraordinary assertion and irrespective of whether they are fake or not, exceptional sources are required and there is no single source given on that page regarding any agency.

Finally we are not debating whether something is fake or not we are arguing only in the light of wikipedia’s policies that whether geteducated.com is reliable or not. The above arguments are strong enough to categorize this as unreliable source. Scorpiosame (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't have the time at the moment to respond, but take a look at . User Orlady, whom I consider to be a consummate authority on these matters, approved of geteducated.com. --S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You have conveniently said you don’t have time! Misplaced Pages is all about being neutral and providing logical arguments. I have clearly pointed out the policy violations and it is our utmost responsibility to shed our biases in the interest of making Misplaced Pages a useful resource. You have pointed out the user Orlady’s comments given earlier on this but seem to have ignored the comments of User Niteshift 36 just above those. Orlady never addressed the above described policy violations and I appreciate if those are addressed rather than avoided.Scorpiosame (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

After going through the above argument as well as the mentioned links regarding reliability and verifiability of the Sources, following points came forward as per my understanding:

1. As per the Misplaced Pages’s description of a Reliable Source Misplaced Pages:BURDEN#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, following is the criteria for the reliability of an article:

“Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.”

After going through the Misplaced Pages page under discussion as well as the article on Geteducated.com, I have to agree with Scorpiosame on the point that the article does not contains any reliability; as it does not disclose any reference or factual backing to the claim about listed accreditation bodies to be unrecognized. If there is a source or evidence that backs the inclusion of the names of the various accreditation bodies, why is it not mentioned? If the reasons on which the names are included in the list were stated, only then the list in the GetEducated article can be justified. This raises a big concern on the reliability of Geteducated.com as a reliable source.

2. Another fact came into my notice while comparing the list on the Misplaced Pages page and the list on Get Educated.com. The list on the Misplaced Pages page en.wikipedia.org/List_of_unrecognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations has an extensive list of unrecognized accreditation bodies that are backed by other reliable sources, but majority of these names are not even mentioned in the Get Educated article quoted as a source. The omission of these other names puts another question mark on the reliability of Geteducated.com as a reliable source. Moreover, the list on the GetEducated.com is not updated or reviewed regularly since it was published. What if any accreditation body, which later is recognized by the relevant authorities and their name is still mentioned in the said list? Unless this list is maintained on a regular basis, it will become obsolete and no longer usable as a reliable source. Francheese (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by Francheese's comments. On #1 she talks about the GetEducated article. I dont think she means a WP article. But she also says Geteducated is not a reliable source because it does not cite sources. Only that leads to a circular argument. E.g., suppose GetEducated cited sources, but those sources did not cite sources themselves, would those sources then fail RS standards? On #2 she says some sources list a whole bunch of unrecognized bodies, but GetEducated does not list those bodies. That does not mean that GetEducated is or is not a RS; GetEducated listed whatever bodies it did because of its own process of review. Perhaps it chose to limit the listing for focus proposes or other quite valid criteria. Again, I invite/urge editors to look at . Orlady has made some very pertinent comments there. Please address them.--S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think S. Rich has explained it much better. He says that GetEducated.com’s article includes entries in their list based on their own process of review. My argument is that there is no process of review mentioned on the article at Geteducated.com’s list. It does not even mention that their list may or may not be up to date, and since there is no review process or someone maintaining this list the information there could be outdated, inaccurate, and non-verifiable.

My main argument is that there is no review process explained anywhere, so the reader does not even know how geteducated.com is maintaining this list, how often it is updated, should the reader consider it concise and up to date, etc. The list on geteducated is maintained based on their own selection process, and there is no mention or explanation of what that selection process is. Hence, it should not be considered as a reliable source unless geteducated’s article explains their review process, update frequency, a disclaimer of some sort that this list may not be up to date, names and credentials of list maintainers, and other such things.

To answer S.Rich’s argument that if geteducated article cited sources and those sources didn’t cite sources would that make geteducated article less of a RS? If the sources they cited are authentic resources such as government websites, reputable scientific or academic publications, reputable non-government organizations then it would become a RS. GetEducated itself is not an authentic source, it could be a Reliable Source if it had included the explanations I mentioned in my first argument. Right now it is just a list that is not up-to-date, with no sources cited, and no disclaimers about the correctness of information or the process through which the information is gathered to maintain this list. Francheese (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You are taking the fact that you don't know much about geteducated and arguing that it is not reliable. Please look at their "about us" pages. Phillips has a good reputation; geteducated/Phillips has been used or written up in the LA Times, Kiplinger, CNN, WSJ, HR Ex online, etc. It was started up in association with AOL. As the founder and Chief Analysist has an acceptable reputation and other sources consider it reliable, geteducated qualifies quite well as a RS.--S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The particular article that is quoted as a source for the names mentioned in Misplaced Pages article is not reliable as a source; for the reasons I have mentioned earlier.

S.Rich has mentioned earlier a member Vickie Phillips as a reliable source and User Orlady as the authorized person regarding GetEducated.com. However, It is not mentioned anywhere in the article on the GetEducated.com website that either Vickie Phillips or User Orlady has any involvement or contribution in compilation, updation or maintenance of this list. Therefore, these individuals can not be relied upon as a reliable source or a reference regarding this particular article.

Francheese 16:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The credentials which establish geteducated.com as a RS certainly exceed those backing up www.schooldigger.com, which was recently used as a reference for Bradford High School (Florida).

Orlady is simply a Misplaced Pages editor who has no connection (as far as I know) to geteducated (or schooldigger). Having seen her work over a couple of years, I hold her in the highest regard.

I looked at geteducated's Diploma Mill Police article on Bedford. It contains an August 2012 date with regard to a legal action. This strongly suggests that geteducated is regularly updating the info re diploma mills. Now if a listed non-accredited institution achieves or receives accreditation, interested editors can certainly update the list. This is a "dynamic list" which means it needs constant updating. This dispute about geteducated is not helpful. If geteducated has outdated info which is being used on the list, then please provide updated info. Also, I speculate that geteducated would welcome updates. --S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC) ˜˜˜˜˜

Thanks for sticking up for me, SRich! (I've been "mostly away" for an extended period.) I will confirm that I have no connection with geteducated.com. As a volunteer contributor to Misplaced Pages, I evaluated the reliability of geteducated as a source for Misplaced Pages articles. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

S. Rich, I am glad that you checked my recent edits please feel free to discuss schooldigger on relevant talk page. I truly respect other Misplaced Pages contributors such as Orlady who have certainly devoted a lot of valuable time and effort for the Misplaced Pages. I am not sure why you are talking about geteducated’s article about Bedford. My concern is the geteducated.com article, which lists fake and unrecognized accreditation bodies. I strongly feel that this article should not be used as a RS when we have other more credible resources that can be used as reference without any doubt. I also feel that you have not replied to any of the arguments I provided to support my POV:

1. The geteducated does not tell how it collects the information.
2. The article has no disclaimer that this list might not be up to date, accurate, or concise.
3. There is no mention of list maintainers.
4. There is no date or way to find out when the list was last changed or updated.

Francheese 11:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There hasn’t been any response provided in favor of using geteducated.com as RS. I am editing it from the entries on the list. Francheese (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

1. The factors you list are not typically used. For more info see WP:RSVETTING. Post that checklist, go through it, allow other editors to comment.
2. geteducated was discussed on the RS Noticeboard and found adequate. Nothing has changed in that regard.
3. You give "list maintainers" as a factor, but haven't looked at the geteducated "about us" page to discover that they do have a list of editors/contributors and they describe the backgrounds of those people. (As for Vickie Phillips, you have to admit that she is reliable because of the mention of her in various media. She's the "founder" and it is hardly necessary to say she has continuing activity or roles in the particular functions you want to see her doing. Indeed, saying she does not do such-and-such simply allows for criticism about an endless role of meaningless factors.)
4. Your factors are admittedly POV -- not based on WP guidance or practice.
5. Your willingness to use schooldigger.com -- a website not affiliated with any major organization and edited by one person -- indicates a ......

--S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

S Rich, I clearly started the discussion by stating specificly the Misplaced Pages policies that were violated and so far no rebuttal has been given. Those are not POV’s. When I pointed out above that the Western Governors University advertising through the largest banner on every page of geteducated.com is rated A by them and provided a link to that rating, the very next day the rating page was removed and the URL started showing 404 error: http://www.geteducated.com/profiles/show/online-degrees/western-governors-university/school-of-educationundergraduate/118/6469

This is hilarious. Someone is desperately trying to make them look good here. I am not against them but it is very unfortunate that on such a platform we are not doing justice as editors and promoting biased point of view in complete violation of wikipedia policies. Best of luck to wikipedia!!

By the way you should reproduce what various media has mentioned about Vikie Phillips as repeatedly claimed by you ? Geteducated.com has twice failed on notability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geteducated.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GetEducated.com)

These links provide an interesting insight into this claim of “media mentioning them”. Please go through these links. Scorpiosame (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the academic reputation of Western Governors University. Furthermore, there is no justification for insisting that S Rich (nor I) should represent and defend GetEducated, Western Governors, Vickie Phillips, or anyone else discussed here.

The fact that GetEducated was not deemed sufficiently notable to have a Misplaced Pages article has nothing to do with the question of whether GetEducated is a reliable source.

Finally, the GetEducated link to the Western Governors undergraduate education programs that I accessed just now work fine: http://www.geteducated.com/profiles/show/online-degrees/western-governors-university/teachers-college-undergraduate/118/6469 . I can't explain why the URL that you recorded doesn't work, but not every 404 error is proof of a dark conspiracy. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

: 1. Is not a strong argument. We have no way of verifying the sequence where you pointed out info on Western Governors which may or may not have lead to geteducated modifying their page. Perhaps they decided that your info was valid and sought to make an improvement. How does a change in an evaluation or website decrease the reliability? 2. Is weak as well. The criteria for evaluating an article to include in WP is different from evaluating sources; besides, the evals you provide are several years old. (And I have invited usage of a pertinent checklist.) 3. I have not seen anything that refutes the kudos that Vickie Philips posts on the website. Are they phone? I hardly need to repeat the kudos here. Again, the various complaints about geteducated are falling by the wayside. You are not WP:RSVETTING, which might better serve the discussion.-S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GetEducated.com vetting

After careful research and consideration, the WP:RSVETTING checklist has been prepared which is as follows (Thanks to S.Rich for guiding towards the right way to put my point forward in the Misplaced Pages community):

The goal

• What are we trying to do here?
  • To determine the credibility of the GetEducated.com article as an RS
    • Not controversial

The material

• What's the material that the ref supports?
  • The inclusion of following names in the article: List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations
• :Accreditation Council for Online Academia
• :Accreditation Panel for Online Colleges and Universities
• :Association of Accredited Bible Schools
• :Association of Distance Learning Programs (ADLP) (aka Association for Distance Learning and National Academy of Higher Education)
• :International Accreditation Organization (IAO)
• :International Education Ministry of Accreditation Association
  • • Not controversial.

• Is it contentious or contended?
  • Contended
    • Not controversial.

• Does the ref indeed support the material?
  • No.
• :The geteducated does not tell how it collects the information.
• :The article has no disclaimer that this list might not be up to date, accurate, or concise.
• :There is no mention of list maintainers.
• :There is no date or way to find out when the list was last changed or updated.
  • • The question is whether the ref indeed supports the material. In fact the material from GetEducated.com does focus on the accreditation/non-accreditation of the particular schools. How well it does so is another question. (If the GetEducated.com material was about a different subject, say whether the moon is made of green cheese, the discussion could end at this point.)

• • • The Misplaced Pages article is titled “List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations” implying that the Misplaced Pages article is not limited merely to the U.S. region. The name rather implies that this Misplaced Pages article encompasses all international accreditation agencies that are not recognized in any part of the world. Any accreditation agency, recognized by organizations themselves, government authorities in their respective countries, or other independent authorities, is a legitimate accrediting body as per the scope of this article; just not being recognized by USDE or CHEA does not make any accreditation organization a part of the list mentioned in the Misplaced Pages Article.
    • As the Geteducated.com article itself states about the list that:
    • “NONE of these accrediting agencies are recognized as college accreditors in the U.S. by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the U.S. Department of Education”
    • Hence GetEducated.com article has a limited scope making it insufficient and incompetent to support a Misplaced Pages article that has a more wider, international scope.
    • Moreover, In Misplaced Pages, a “Source” supports the material has to be a RELIABLE SOURCE. The Misplaced Pages in its policy of “Reliable sources” (WP:SOURCES) defines what count as a reliable source by clearly mentioning:
    • “In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.”
    • If GetEducated.com focuses on this certain topic, why not mention or discuss the methods for checking or analyzing facts considered while compiling this list or provide evidence to ensure the transparency and unbiasedness of this list. There is also no mention if the list is regularly monitored, updated or changed with the passage of time.

The author

• Who is the author?
  • No author mentioned. It is an astonishing fact that no writer or team has been mentioned as the author of this particular article in contrast to the other articles in the same **Diploma Mill Police category of GetEducated.com, where all other article cite an actual person or a consumer reporting team as authors.

As S.Rich has mentioned that Vicky Phillips, the founder of GetEducated.com, “has continuing activity or roles in the particular functions”, the question arises why is she so hesitant in citing her name in the article as the author and the person who carried out the research (which again has no applied procedure mentioned for) in light of which the list of the names mentioned has been prepared.

• • • Not a dispositive issue. Many newspaper/magazine articles are published with author attribution. Often "News Service" is the only attribution. In this case Phillips exercises editorial control and GetEducated has a staff listing.

• • • All articles in the Diploma Mill Police section of GetEducated.com happen to have either a particular author or the “GetEducated Consumer Reporting Team” mentioned as the author of the respective article; Why leave the discussed article left without any credits? Even if Philips exercises editorial control, why just pick this controversial list as the one without any credits?

• Does the author have a Misplaced Pages article?
  • No
    • Not controversial, and not dispositive.

• What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?
  • Not mentioned
    • "Not mentioned" is not correct. We do have info on Phillips, albeit sparse.

• • • As mentioned above, the author of the particular article has not been mentioned, despite the fact that the authors for all the other article of Diploma Mill Police Section of GetEducated.com have been distinctively mentioned.
    • http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/347-top-10-states-diploma-mill-degree-mills (By GetEducated.com Consumer Reporting Team)
    • http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/320-should-i-tell-employers-i-earned-my-degree-online (By Vicky Phillips, Chief Education Analyst)
    • In above mentioned articles, the name of the author (s) is mentioned , where as the article under discussion with the controversial list does not quote any author or team of authors to be responsible for the collection and compilation of the said list, which is a big question mark on its reliability and credibility itself.

• What else has the author published?
  • Not mentioned
    • Not controversial.

• Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?
  • Not mentioned
    • Incorrect: At this State of New Jersey website, the GetEducated.com "Diploma Mill Police" link has been posted, albeit with a disclaimer:
      Used on a WCAX news story. See: for video and for text.
    • The link on the State of New Jersey website redirects to the Diploma Mill Police page (http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mill-police) on Get Educated – NOT to the particular article in discussion – again the author is not clearly mentioned, therefore this link would not be considered as a citation.

Similar is the case with the WCAX links.

• How does the author make a living?
  • Not mentioned
    • Not controversial, and not dispositive.

• What about reputation? Are there any big character markers?
  • The absence of the author’s name raises the question on the credibility of this article as well as the process of research that went in collection of the information mentioned in the article.
    • Focusing on the lack of author names for individual articles misses the point. Per other sources, Phillips has a reputation, GetEducated.com has been posted on the State of New Jersey higher education page, and we have the WCAX newsstory.

• • • The suspicion arises on the point that why miss out on the author’s name being mentioned ONLY in the article under discussion when all other articles on the website clearly mention the author(s).

• Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit?
  • Not mentioned
    • Not correct. The question is asking about the opinions provided by GetEducated.com. We do see they have opinions -- about fraudulent schools. I suggest we compare those opinions with those of other commentators. E.g., if GetEducated.com has opinions that comport with those of other evaluators, then we can use those comparisons to peg GetEducated on the "continuum".
    • GetEducated.com is considered as the Publication rather than an individual author, and the identity of the individual author or the team is still under question therefore GetEducated.com cannot be pegged on the continuum

• Anything else?
  • With no author mentioned, the credibility of the article is questionable.
    • Not a helpful comment. Only rehashes previous points.

The publication

• What is it?
  • GetEducated.com claims to be an online consumer group that publishes articles related to online education and their rankings on their website.
    • Not controversial.

• Is it a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, or a magazine (or newspaper) known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
  • No. They are not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal or a magazine. Moreover, there is no process mentioned that ensures an effective fact checking operation.
    • Incorrect. While not a journal or magazine, we do have info which credits their attempts at evaluating schools. (See links provided above.) If GetEducated's rating comport with those of other rating agencies, then we can use the correlation for what its worth.
    • When the GetEducated.com or the article states no evidence that would concur its effective fast checking operations. Infact they list no reference or method on the basis of which they have compiled the said list

• If not, is there any reason to believe that anyone has checked the author's facts?
  • No. There is no mention of the original author or anyone else that may have reviewed or checked the author’s fact.
    • Not controversial.

• What's their circulation?
  • Being an online source, there is no circulation/ visit count mentioned.
    • Not controversial.

• What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation?
  • As per the following links, their reputation might be questionable.
  • :http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/05/20/supposed-degree-watchdog-geteducated-com-may-need-its-own-watchd/
    • Beau Brendler has both positive and negative things to say. His closing advice is to go to a non-profit school. Alas, dailyfinance.com is an AOL webpage and has ads for Bank of America and various online stock brokers. Should we be getting our advice from non-profit news sources? The question of for-profit vs. non-profit is a red herring.
    • For-Profit vs Non Profit is also a question when it comes to GetEducated.com. It features advertisements from various online education institutions that can raise a question on its motives.
  • :http://geteducatedfraud.blogspot.com/
    • This personal blog simply re-hashes the fact that GetEducated.com did not survive afd. And the blogger thinks "Misplaced Pages a very reliable source."

• Do they have an agenda?
  • As per their website, they pledge to help consumers get educated about college cost and credibility so they can choose with confidence the best online education programs. But at the same time, they allow commercial activities on their website by allowing paid advertisements for different educational institutes, which raises question on the integrity of the website and unbiased reporting of facts.
    • Perhaps the GetEducated agenda is to make some money. In that sense, Apple also has the same agenda -- to make money. (And so do I (e.g., make money). But I did not mind a bit when I gave some of my money to Apple to buy an iPad. When I did so, both of our agendas were fulfilled. Apple got more money (out of my pocket) and I got a very nice iPad.) Acceptance of advertising is not dispositive. But look at who is advertising with them: USC, various state universities, and other well-established universities. They do not seem to mind adding their names to the GetEducated website.
    • Comparing Apple with Geteucated.com is like comparing apples and oranges. Apple sells its own manufactured product while GetEducated.com publishes reviews about online educational institutions while taking advertisements from similar online universities, which raises a big question mark on the credibility of its reviews.
    • I searched the reviews on one of the advertisers on GetEducated.com, Western Governors University. It turns out that all the reviews for the college on GetEducated.com are all strangely and tremendously positive: http://www.geteducated.com/profiles/search/schoolID=118&SS=Search%20by%20School%20%3E%20Western%20Governors%20University%20%28%20UT%20%29
    • Also, while going through the Misplaced Pages page of WGU (http://en.wikipedia.org/Western_Governors_University), a mention of a GetEducated.com article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Western_Governors_University#cite_note-34) (http://www.geteducated.com/profiles/show/online-degrees/western-governors-university/school-of-business-undergraduate/118/6469) was made, which is no longer working, which seems to be an act of hiding the biased review and ranking for an advertiser

• What's their business incentive for veracity?
  • Geteducated.com claims to be dedicated to assist students in comparing and rating accredited online colleges and universities. . However, GetEducated,.com fails to mention any procedures followed that would add to the authenticity of the information provided by them; which leads to believe that they have no business incentive for veracity.
    • In keeping with my comments elsewhere, it looks like GetEducated wants to provide reliable, accessible information. In doing so, they have an excellent and worthy business incentive for veracity. With this in mind, it looks like they have succeeded. Their "about us" page lists numerous news stories which establishes their veracity. (Here is another example from the NYT: .)
    • I agree that they do “seem” to have a business incentive for veracity, but then why not cite references and methods to add to the veracity and authenticity of their articles.

Other

• Does the source have standing to address the material?
  • No. With more authenticated and reliable sources such as CHEA and U.S Dept. of Education publishing, reviewing and maintaining a list of the unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations, which have also been cited in the Misplaced Pages article under discussion; the mention of a questionable, unmaintained and unreviewed source such as the geteducated article http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-accreditation does not stand up to the status of a reliable source.
    • It is true that other/more sources provide such info. IMHO, adding another is no big shakes. If GetEducated does the same job or even a better job at exposing the fraudsters, then another nail in the coffin is good. As a proponent of the free-market, it looks to me that GetEducated has found a consumer need and is fulfilling it. In doing so, they establish themselves (herself) as a WP:RS.
    • But in the presence of a list compiled by authorized and non-for-profit, CHEA and USDE itself, why opt for a an unmaintained, unreviewed and anonymously written/compiled article from a for-profit organization with questionable motives. As Geteducated.com article fails to meet the requirements as per the definition of Misplaced Pages: Reliable Source, therefore it does not qualify to be cited as an RS.

• Anything else?
  • The credibility and reliability of the geteducated.com can also be questionable due to the conflict of interest that may arise due to GetEducated being a commercially backed website by their advertisers.
    • Does not add new info.

Francheese (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been a month since the WP:RSVETTING has been posted along with the WP:RFC also being initiated; but there has been no comment supporting the credibility of the discussed GetEducated.com article. Therefore, I am removing the GetEducated.com article as a reference from the list of references.

Kindly discuss here on the talk page before reverting the changes. Francheese (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is still open. I'm reverting you as I don't see a consensus here and I do see where the Council for Higher Education Accreditation suggests its use to "find additional information about organizations believed to be “degree mills”. That seems enough to use it as a source. (sinebot where are you? I wrote this - User:Dougweller

Well, I was hoping other editors would kick in before I had to put any work into this effort. Since they haven't, my thoughts are posted. Red font indicates I disagree with Francheese's comment. Next, Blue font represents non-controversal comments (although I do add some commentary). And purple font indicates my mixed feelings, although I still end up disagreeing with Francheese.--S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my comment was so short - you've done a magnificent job. I seem to have been mistaken in saying an RfC is open, as there doesn't seem to be a real RfC at all. And there is also no consensus for removing GetEducated.com. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you S.Rich for adding your comments on RSVETTING. I have posted my responses to your comments in Green font color. Francheese (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WOEAC AND BOUA NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST

Membership in the Agency shall be limited to institutions that offer instruction, assessment, and student services in the distance education field and are accredited by the WOEAC Accrediting Commission. The WOEAC Accrediting Commission may also accredit independent learning institutions. The World Online Education Accrediting Commission (WOEAC) has been the standard-setting Accrediting Commission for correspondence study and distance education institutions including Ashwood University. Ashwood University has full accreditation status. Accredited by two recognized accreditation institutions, the World Online Education Accrediting Commission (WOEAC) and the Board of Online Universities Accreditation (BOUA). The Board of Online Universities Accreditation (BOUA) has been the leading agency for distance education institutions since its inception. The Board of Online Universities Accreditation (BOUA) has been providing accreditation to online universities since its inception. It was set up to improve educational standards and commercial practices of online universities that have sprung up in the last few decades.8.225.200.43 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)8.225.200.43 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.43 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that either of these entities is recognized as accreditation organizations by anybody but diploma mill operators? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The act of accrediting or the state of being accredited, especially the granting of approval to an institution of learning by an official review board after the school has met specific requirements.

Accreditation is a non-governmental peer review process in which the integrity and good faith of an institution and its officers are essential. Membership in the Agency shall be limited to institutions that offer instruction, assessment, and student services in the distance education field and are accredited by the WOEAC Accrediting Commission. The WOEAC Accrediting Commission may also accredit independent learning institutions. The World Online Education Accrediting Commission (WOEAC) has been the standard-setting Accrediting Commission for correspondence study and distance education institutions including Ashwood University. Ashwood University has full accreditation status. Accredited by two recognized accreditation institutions, the World Online Education Accrediting Commission (WOEAC) and the Board of Online Universities Accreditation (BOUA). The Board of Online Universities Accreditation (BOUA) has been the leading agency for distance education institutions since its inception. The Board of Online Universities Accreditation (BOUA) has been providing accreditation to online universities since its inception. It was set up to improve educational standards and commercial practices of online universities that have sprung up in the last few decades.8.225.200.43 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's probably mainly copyvio. The BOUA seems to be part of a much larger diploma mill organisation.. As for Ashwood University, "Ashwood University is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. The Toronto Star reports that Ashwood University operates out of Pakistan." See also World Online Education Accrediting Commission. We won't be in a hurry to remove these. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Accreditation Council for Online Higher Education

We need sources in order to add this one. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturopathic

A couple of sources on naturopathy: and - ran into these while researching Clayton College. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Quality Assurance Commission"

Ladies and Gentlemen in this discussion group of experts, pls, notice the following legal framework for HEBRG approval and HESA recognition and listing as Accrediting Body:

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/component/option,com_studrec/task,show_file/Itemid,233/mnl,12061/href,accreditation_guidance.html/ Version 1.1 Produced 2011-12-15 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) and professional accreditation of undergraduate programmes

This is a statement from HEBRG (Higher Education Better Regulation Group). 1. The decision that the KIS should include information about accreditation by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies reflects the interests of students, as identified in the original research published by HEFCE, in having information about the professional bodies that recognise the course and hence about how the course might improve their employment prospects. However it is recognised that PSRB is an umbrella term for a very diverse group of organisations, including professional bodies, regulators and those with statutory authority over a profession or group of professionals. One of the roles of a PSRB may be to accredit programmes of higher education, either directly or through institutional accreditation.

2. 'Accreditation' is used in this context as a mark of assurance that the programme (or in some cases the institution as a whole) meets the standards set by the accrediting body. The outcome of a successful programme accreditation by a PSRB may include one or more of the following: a. graduates are able to practise as a professional in a specific field, and in some cases receive a license to practise that is required by law; b. graduates are granted chartered status; c. graduates are granted exemption from all or part of professional exams; d. graduates are eligible for entry to membership of a professional association or learned society; e. the programme is confirmed as meeting externally designated standards and quality.

3. There are many types of accreditation and processes vary widely, but they normally involve: a. external peer review; b. a definitive yes/no decision at the end of the accreditation process; c. a time delimited period of accreditation, with further review by the end of the accreditation period; d. regular monitoring of student performance.

4. Accreditation of programmes may be essential and required by law if the graduate is to be permitted to practice in their chosen profession, or it may more generally be considered a worthwhile exercise by the higher education provider in ensuring that the course meets professional needs and will improve the employment prospects of students. Whatever the aim of the accreditation, the PSRB should be committed to ensuring that its processes are not unduly burdensome and that they align with other sector-specific regulatory processes where they exist. Bodies are expected to adhere to the Principles of Better Regulation for Higher Education developed by the Higher Education Better Regulation Group (HEBRG).

5. Organisations that undertake accreditation of HE programmes and are identified through a KIS will be asked to provide relevant information on their own websites explaining in general terms the purposes of accreditation of higher educational programmes and the potential benefits to students.

6. The PSRBs currently recognised as eligible for inclusion in the KIS are listed in the List of accrediting bodies

7. There may also be other organisations, for example employers' representatives, not normally referred to as PSRBs and not involved in professional education; nevertheless they may undertake scrutiny of programmes with reference to industrial content or higher skills development that institutions would find valuable in informing prospective students and therefore wish to record in the KIS.

8. Such an organisation may be considered for acceptance onto the list of bodies eligible for inclusion in the KIS if it undertakes accreditation of higher education programmes that: a. results in all or most of the outcomes listed in paragraph 2; b. involves at least some of the processes listed in paragraph 3.

9. Where institutions believe other bodies should be added to the list of PSRBs they should contact liaison@hesa.ac.uk in the first instance. Process (from C13061) Organisations needing to be considered for addition to the list will be required to set out, against each of the criteria outlined in paragraph eight above (in a report of less than 2000 words) how they meet the criteria. The deadline for consideration for inclusion in the KIS published in September of any year will be 1 December of the previous year. Representatives from HEFCE, QAA, HEBRG and HESA (the Panel) will meet in January each year to consider additions to the list and HESA will communicate decisions by the end of January. Where organisations are not accepted for inclusion in the list they will have a right to appeal. Reasons for appealing should be put in writing, within one month of their initial panel decision in less than 1000 words. The case will then be considered by HEPISG, which will decide whether there are any grounds for accepting the appeal, and advise on next steps. Final decisions will be made before the end of March each year. If HEPISG rejects the bid then applicants will not be able to submit a further case for inclusion until there has been a substantial or material change to the organisation's process. This is designed to ensure there are not multiple and repeated attempts to gain inclusion on the list, where the case made is poor, because continually entertaining these requests may mean that other organisations, with valid claims, may be disadvantaged. HESA will manage this process and convene meetings of the panel. HEFCE will be responsible for liaison/communication with HEPISG. This process will be evaluated in 2015 when HEPISG will consider its fitness for purpose and if improvements could be made, such as updating HEBRG's investigation into professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs); burden and alignment with wider QA infrastructure; future development and integration with wider academic infrastructure; and wider public information developments. Ad hoc enhancements to the process will be made as need arises.

The Principles for Better Regulation of Higher Education in the United Kingdom (November 2011) were developed by HEBRG and apply primarily to organisations that have a direct responsibility for regulating or holding to account any aspect of higher education provision offered by UK institutions. (http://www.hebetterregulation.ac.uk/HEConcordat/Pages/default.aspx)

HEBRG expects that regulators and funding bodies, government departments, sector-specific agencies, professional, statutory and regulatory bodies and higher education providers within the scope of the proposed single regulatory framework will wish to commit wherever appropriate to the six Principles: - Regulation should encourage and support efficiency and effectiveness in institutional management and governance. - Regulation should have a clear purpose that is justified in a transparent manner. - Regulation depends on reliable, transparent data that is collected and made available to stakeholders efficiently and in a timely manner. - Regulation assessing quality and standards should be co-ordinated, transparent and proportionate. - Regulation should ensure that the interests of students and taxpayers are safeguarded and promoted as higher education operates in a more competitive environment. - Alternatives to regulation should be considered where appropriate.

Well well, as wordily pointed out here, the "Quality Assurance Commission" (QAC) really is listed within a "List of accrediting bodies".

According to this, QAC is based at "No. 4 The Rose Garden 14, Stour Way, Christchurch, BH23 2PF, England." A Google Street Map photo of the house next door but one doesn't look to me like the area where you'd find an accreditation agency. Does anyone here have evidence that QAC provides accreditation for anything other than degree mills?

As I look at the preamble for the "List of accrediting bodies", I don't see any sign of a quality check. Is this perhaps just a list of organizations that claim to be accrediting bodies, complete with the wording that each chooses to supply? (I really don't know: I see the term "nutrition", but I don't see either "holistic" or "complementary".) -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the new Quality Assurance Commission (QAC) is officially recognized, you must remove from this list of unrecognized accreditation bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.158.170 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be just a list with no evidence that it's officially recognised. HESA is a statistical agency with no authority to recognise bodies. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are aware that QAC UK Limited has closed in 2010 and the new QAC registered in 2011 is engage in higher education programme accreditation not institutional accreditation like QAC UK Limited.

I assume that you also are aware that there is no official accreditation system for higher education in the UK. The new QAC is engage in programme accreditation and credit transfers recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermicheljean (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello "Petermicheljean". This new "QAC" -- just what has it accredited? Who claims that its courses are accredited by QAC? (Only "IIU" and the like?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you really have against the IIU? I do not see the IIU and the like accredited by the new QAC of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermicheljean (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please just answer Hoary's question? Ignore the IIU right now. So far as the UK goes, as our article says, "In the UK it is illegal to offer a qualification that is or might seem to be UK degree unless the awarding body is recognised by the Secretary of State, a Royal Charter or Act of Parliament to grant degrees." Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The new QAC has recognised the international and european programes of Azteca (foreign accredited university). QAC is not a degree awarding body. QAC will issue equivalency recognition. But are you aware as far as UK goes it is not illegal for foreign accredited institutions to offer thier own awards in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermicheljean (talk • contribs) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, yes, universidadazteca.net indeed tells us that The Quality Assurance Commission has examined the curricula and syllaba presented blah blah blah; and it implies that this "Quality Assurance Commission" is itself credible on the strength of its listing in this page at hesa.ac.uk. Should we take "syllaba" as a little wink to the knowing by the "Quality Assurance Commission", something like "No, we too can't believe that we actually got money to write this"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So you are paid by someone? So wikipidia is a scam front? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermicheljean (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Petermicheljean?

Here at Accountancy Age, we learn that Jeff Wooller (aka "Baron Knowth"):

1. is "the honorary chancellor of the Irish International University, an institution that a BBC London investigation alleges is bogus, luring international students to the UK to do so-called degrees unaccredited by the relevant bodies" (link added)
2. "wanted the university to refrain from saying it was accredited by an external body called the Quality Assurance Commission, which was owned by the university’s boss."

-- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly who says "not the same organisation"? Bircham International University says the QAC accredited it in 2011.. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The long screed added at the top of this section is irrelevant as it would have to be interpreted by editors to apply it to an organisation. See WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As dougweller put it ignore IIU, we are talking about the new QAC. IIU and BIU are not on their list.

We are talking about the new QAC whose status and mandate is very clear as an accrediting body and recognized per se by the new listing. You must face the truth and remove it from the list of bogus accrediting bodies connected with degree mills. Otherwise you are outdated and misleading the public.ש — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermicheljean (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ignore IIU, but QAC and IIU seem interrelated. They were interrelated historically, as is well documented. And, amazing, here we have a claim that IIU (or the part of it with the Ascension tld) is accredited or recognized (the web page coyly declines to specify) by the University of Azteca (Universidad Azteca). Is it a coincidence that Azteca is "accredited" by "QAC"?

Incidentally, I'd like to provide a Webcite backup of that page, but Webcite tells me that This URL has been archived internally and can be made available for scholars on request, but we cannot make it accessible on the web, because the copyright holder (David Smith, ____@yahoo.com) has asked us not to display the material. I've politely redacted part of the address, but I thought that some might be interested that the one person who has copyright is one David Smith and that the address he supplies is not an institutional but a yahoo.com address. Meanwhile, the "European Chairman" of this particular part of IIU is one Jean-Pierre Poelmans, whose name sounds oddly familiar in the current context.

So, QAC is listed as an "accrediting body" by an organization concerned with statistics about education. It's a most interesting list. Typical self-suggested text: Accredited by the Institution of Engineering Designers (IED) on behalf of the Engineering Council for the purposes of fully meeting the academic requirement for registration as an Incorporated Engineer. True, not all are so informative; consider Accredited by the Periodicals Training Council (PTC). Well, at least we know that this has something to do with periodicals. Text suggested by "QAC": Accredited by the Quality Assurance Commission (QAC). Accredited as or for what? This looks most dubious.

If indeed the new QAC registered in 2011 is engage in higher education programme accreditation not institutional accreditation (as we are told above), then why does "Bircham International University" display its 2011 institutional accreditation by QAC? Why is QAC's fancy letter signed by an unnamed "Chief Executive"? How did it manage to "accredit" a "university" that can't even decide (backup) whether "International" is its middle name? -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.geteducated.com/profiles/show/online-degrees/western-governors-university/school-of-educationundergraduate/118/6469
2. Dale Braza, Big promises, broken dreams, Toronto Star, August 31, 2008

• List-Class education articles
• Mid-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles