Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For copyright information regarding www.wessex.ac.uk, please refer to their copyright notice.[3]

NPOV[edit]

See "Reinsertion of controversy", below, for my reasons for considering this page to be POV. Namely it consists almost entirely of text lifted from Wessex Institute of Technology's online marketing material. I added onesource too for the same reason. 82.33.152.5 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add things on your own that make pages seem POV when they are not, editors looked at this page and they did not find anything wrong. Please sign in and justify your points here with editors before making edits or they will just be reverted as vandalism. The article is in line with other acedemic ones as desided by editors, please read their comments. --Curuxz 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is stacked with POV, some of which I will now remove. Can I ask you, Curuxz, are you in any way connected with the institute? Per WP:COI, you will be good enough to inform us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing up the article. I agree with the changes made, I only used the text for convenience reasons and agree that it was a little too promotional which was unintentional.
I have no problems with editors changing the pages but I do object to anonymous labels being used which fail to improve the situation. With respect to recent problems with this page the editors have said that the version I uploaded was the appropriate one and it appeared that the classification of the page by the same anonymous IP was a further attempt to damage the WIT page.
My own interests have been made public before in the discussion regarding previous edits. The point of COI was raised but dismissed by an editor as irrelevant as it was clear that I was following the rules when cleaning a page and my connection to the subject matter was not a factor in this regard. For your information I will state again that I am an employee at the institute but acting in a personal capacity and as such all views are my own, I would like to add that I simply want to make this article up to the same standards and format of other UK academic pages.
Please note I have had to re-edit the first paragraph since it is how the University of Wales wishes to publicise their association with validated institutions like WIT. Notably they state that it should always be written as “Institution X, associated with the University of Wales” - I was simply following their protocol on this. --Curuxz 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would provide an answer here to the question "are you in any way connected with the institute?", or else provide a link to your previous answer to the question. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my above comment, paragraph 3, line 3. Thank you. --Curuxz 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of your answer in the third paragraph. It would be courteous of you to provide a link to that answer, or (probably simpler) answer the question again here. I have scanned the discussions on this page and see no information on whether you have, or the nature of, your link to WIT. Why is it a problem for you to answer what seems to me a simple and straightforward question, in other than the elliptical way above? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user has clearly stated that they are an employee of WIT. What more could you want to know? Mark Chovain 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. My bad. I do apologise. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Controversy section:[edit]

This has no relevence with WIT, they simply orginised the confrence and the scientists involved came from other institutions. Maybe have a section about WIT confrences yes but this causes the article to look POV.

This should probably be mentioned too, it's along the same lines as the other controversy: [4] --Hrrr 13:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems not only old but entirely nonsensical, I would be interested in the credentials of the author, where did you find out about it if you don’t mind me asking?

Reinsertion of controversy[edit]

The user Curuxz has systematically been editing out the "Controversy" material, as a look back through "history" indicates. The majority of this user's contributions have been to this page and to the related "Carlos Brebbia" page (now deleted; Brebbia is the founder of WIT and the only academic named on its website). I suspect institutional / propaganda motives and some of Curuxz's comments further down this discussion page would seem to confirm this. I would note that the result of Curuxz's edits is that the entire entry reads like a puff piece for WIT. (Largely because it is: the whole thing appears to be lifted from pages linked here: http://www.wessex.ac.uk/overview/index.html .)

Whether or not the "Controvery" material is appropriate in its present form and its present location I do not wish to judge; nor have I much opinion on whether or not it is POV, which was Curuxz's excuse for the whitewash.

However, I think we can all agree that snipping it in its entirety and replacing it with marketing material -- as well a user with propagandistic aims serving as sole judge of whether or not something is POV -- is a subversion of wikipedia.

If the material is deemed unsuitable **by consensus** then fair enough; I just don't think it should be the sole decision of Curuxz.

And I certainly don't think Wikipedia is here to provide a mirror for someone's marketing site.

82.33.152.5 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have restored the page, please refrain from editing pages off your own bat and follow the procedures of wikipedia.
This page was a stub article that was totally out of line with pages on other academic institutions, and therefor I have cleaned it up to make it a ::useful piece of information for end users. Information sources were cited correctly. If you look at other pages on UK academic institutions you will ::see that the page I have created is in line with those. The 'controversy' section is highly POV and breaks wiki rules while additionally breaking ::the president of similar pages as has been pointed out before. Wikipedia is not designed to display personal opinion and point of view, nor provide ::a sounding board for grievances against people or organisations. There are many issues regarding academic institutions and their work but that is ::not the purpose of this page.
I would remind you to check the rules regarding these pages and ask the general community so we can obtain concensus on this issue. Due notice and ::time was given of intention to change this page and the points were mooted but objections fell silent. If you feel you have something to add then ::please discuss here and get consensus before breaking this page from normal academic entries.
Please do not engage on a personal attack on my contributions as biased, I would again remind you to assume good faith. This is an article on an
academic institution in the UK and should reflect as such.
Please sign your comments with an actual name, since anonymous vandalising of pages on wikipedia is strictly against the rules and your actions ::could be construed as such. Please refrain from editing as so not to cause an edit war, content changes should be discussed here.
Other pages have no bearing on this issue, keep the discussion focused so as to insure good faith. --Curuxz 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm - those claims were referenced. While wikipedia should not be used to cast slurs against people or organisations, we do not sanitise articles by removing referenced sections. The anon user did the right thing by restoring a referenced section and explaining their reasoning here. Mark Chovain 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, user John254 concurs with Curuxz about the "Controvery" material, which is fair enough. See [5] and [6]. Please note, as I said to start with, I had no position on the material itself, I just didn't think it shouild be solely Curuxz's decision to delete it.

That only leaves the rest of the article. As I noted it is lifted almost entirely from here: [7] . It seems to me that using an institute's marketing material verbatim is, by definition, non-neutral. So I have inserted the POV tag. I have no knowledge of sources about WIT to improve it myself. But people should be warned that what they're seeing is NOT a neutral, encyclopedic article, but a piece of marketing puff.

I also added onesource, which seemed relevant here. 82.33.152.5 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of controversy II[edit]

Like it or lump it, but the controversy section does belong into the article. There is something fishy about the whole W.I.T. enterprise and I do think that an employee of the Institution not allowing any criticism because "this does not happen on the pages of other UK academic institutions" is censorship and not worthy of Wikipedia. Is Curuxz an editor? If so I'd like to bring this case up to whoever is looking after the Wikipedia standards. I am sorry but the whole controversy is about whether or not it is indeed an academic institution or a title/paper mill. The "paper mill" claim is well referenced an not admitting that there is a controversy is certainly POV. As anyone can check I actually have a paper in one of the WIT publications and my impression is entirely in line with the VIDEA claim: there was no peer-review whatsoever. I have never received any referee reports. I did not go to the trouble of documenting this, so I realise that my own statement cannot be used as a wikipedia reference. --Grothey (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say The "paper mill" claim is well referenced. What are the references for the "paper mill" claim? Why, if it is a "paper mill" does it have DfEE (or whatever they're called nowadays) accreditation?
As to the VIDEA claim - whether one believes it or not - fails WP:RS. Unless a reliable source can be found, it will not stick to the article.
Curuxz has COI issues. I do not. And I reverted the controversy insert this evening. You're not going to get far with a COI argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about whether or not there is a controversy. Not which side of the controversy is right. If W.I.T. has accreditation then include that into the article with proper references in the controversy section. But deleting the whole section is not the proper way of doing this.--Grothey (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the references? It is that easy. Provide references which meet WP:RS and the controversy section gets included. Fail to provide them and it gets excluded. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Tagishsimon on this one (and I'm one of the editors who reinserted it months ago - definitely no COI here). There's no "controversy" unless we can find reliable references stating that the claims have some veracity. I'd really like to see the section go in, but not without a good ref (or two!) -- Mark Chovain 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I will accept that I have a declared COI the fact remains that this is a page about a UK academic institution and wikipedia pages are all supposed to be consistent and no matter how it sourced, or not as the case currently is, a quick google search of "university controversy" (refined to the UK) will show everything and anything from stem cell research, cheating on quiz shows and questionable degree standards and even though these numerous incidents with proof and many references exist for other academic institutions there is not a trace of it on their wikipedia page because thats not what those pages or this one is for. Wikipedia is for the benefit of the end users as an encyclopedia and not using it as a weapon to air personal grievances or opinions which damages the integrity of the encyclopedia. There are much bigger controversies at other institutions and wikipedia has clear guidelines and hours of discussion that has all concluded this very kind of material should not be included and thats before you get into the poor referencing. On top of all this we have a select few engaging in edit waring, changing the page against consensus and in some cases getting banned! This is clearly personal to some and all the more so inappropriate. --Curuxz (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search for academic institutions on wikipedia with controversy sections, I did not restrict myself to the artificial definition of the UK - although it did return Keele., Why should consistency only be applied to UK sites surely it should be equally across all countries? Anyway the following pages returned controversy or criticism sections on the main University page: Keele University, Liberty University, DePauw University, University of Phoenix, Brigham Young University Academic freedom issues, University of Missouri System, University of Pennsylvania, Bob Jones University, Patriot Bible University, Oral Roberts University - not a criticism section but includes many criticisms, Pensacola Christian College. In addition several additional pages solely covering controversies at a University were found, but without links from the main University wikipedia page: University of Pennsylvania controversies, Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, 2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy We clearly have many other academic pages breaking this so called "consistency rule". Either this means no such rule exists or else all of these pages need to remove their controversy sections. I personally would not want to remove section for Liberty University that has the following quote from Richard Dawkins: "If it's really true, that the museum at Liberty University has dinosaur fossils which are labeled as being 3000 years old, then that is an educational disgrace. It is debauching the whole idea of a university, and I would strongly encourage any members of Liberty University who may be here, to leave and go to a proper university." Though I respect your right to differ. 149.117.23.28 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore this "rule" of avoiding criticism on Wikipedia pages is dangerous in light of the recent emergence of a number of bogus and unacredited Universities such as the University of Wexford, Hampshire University http://web.archive.org/web/20040324062738/http://www.uhamp.org/ and the University of Palmers Green. Are you saying that if they came up with a wikipedia page, they could not have a criticism or controversy section either? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/2829237.stm 149.117.23.28 (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is to cite reliable sources. If you can do that - if you can substantiate that there is a controversy or a bogus element - then fine. Else not fine. It's that simple. See WP:RS for details of what is and is not a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Older comments[edit]

In light of lack of response I hear by give notice that in 5 days I will remove and completely rewrite this bad page unless anyone else wishes to contribute.--83.105.103.11 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to state objections on the discussion page, or add new features, rather than to threaten to completely rewrite the page. The credentials of the Author Scott Minnich are hyperlinked from the page. The controversy is mentioned in articles there. In particular his testimony for "Kitzmiller vs Dover" the Wessex Institite of Technology was mentioned so as to lend authority to the scientific integrity of his conclusions. This case made legal history in the US as it was the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life".
I don't want to take POV on Intelligent Design vs Evolution, I just saw this as being very topical and significant progress on the development of this debate.
Regarding the statement that the conference organised by WIT has no relevance to WIT, I would state two points:
1) If the British Medical Association were to publish a paper in its peer reviewed Journal "The Lancet" stating some health benefits from smoking but not mentioning the other research on its the adverse health effects. This would therefore make a strong case for tobacco companies in court cases trying to avoid punitive damages for health damage to claimants. If the BMA puts its name on these journal it should not be surprised if the public's confidence in its organization is coloured by the conclusions reached by the papers it publishes.
2) Under oath Scott Minnich stated that his paper was reviewed by people who came from the Wessex Institute of Technology although he did not know by whom.
Regarding the complaint that the article is old, the paper was presented at the 2004 Conference. Aside from the fact I consider this to be recent, I see no reason why encylopedia articles need to deal only with recent events.
01-04-2007 (CC)
I have removed my original comment since it lacked clarity please see below --Curuxz 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conference papers, including those published by Wessex Institute of Technology are normally reviewed by members of the Scientific Committee and other qualified reviewers and, if accepted, published in the conference book. The WIT conference programme provides a forum for presentation and discussion of the author’s work, which is afterwards disseminated through the book. It goes without saying that the WIT cannot endorse all the different views expressed by the conference participants.'--Curuxz


In response to your comments:
1) I repeat "Scott Minnich stated under oath that the paper was reviewed by people from WIT" i.e. he was not stating they acted as a conduit. He obviously had communication with the people reviewing his paper and saw the origin by their e-mail address i.e. Wessex Institute of Technology.
2) Your publicity states "The excellent reputation of WIT Conferences in different parts of the world continues to grow". How can you simultaneously take credit for the reputation of a conference and state you have no control over the contents? I find your comparison to a library irrelevant. The role of a library and an academic institution/scientific peer-reviewed journal are worlds apart. Obviously WIT has control over the conference in terms of:
a) Deciding scope of papers suited for inclusion.
b) Appointing an academic organizing and reviewing committee.
c) Setting standards for inclusion of papers in the conference.
Your organization's eagerness to hold academic conferences seems to have been highjacked by intelligent design proponents. Apparently I am not the only one to think so, my entry was picked up by a discussion thread on the British Council for Science Education web site:

http://bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=644&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45&sid=8c3b8fb10f5d4cbaf1e73faca7c6a57d

"Whatever the rights and wrongs, the WIT seems to have hosted two ID conferences. Looking at their web site, it seems an insitution entirely suited to McInstosh - in his day job. It was originally named Computational Mechanics Institute and its 2007 conferences don't contain anything looking remotely loony."
The fact that WIT has reinstated this conference for 2008, it remains to be seen if this will still be a forum for promoting Intelligent Design. The name of an academic instiution is like that of any commercial product in that it is a brand. The "excellent reputation" of WIT refered in its publicity should be something that it's Directors should not wish to be tarnished, by association with such controversial and unscientific articles.
Another paper in the same conference is from another unashamed proponent of intelligent design: McIntosh, A.C. " Functional Information and Entropy in living systems ", pp. 115-126, Design and Nature III Third International Conference on Design & Nature, 24th-26th May 2006: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 of WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Editor Brebbia, C.A., WIT Press, Wessex Institute of Technology, New Forest, 2006, ISBN: 1-84564-166-3
Although Professor McIntosh from the University of Leeds hold a presigous position, the University itself took the unusual step of publicly distancing themselves from his ideas on intelligent design: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm
"As an academic institution, the University wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design which cannot be verified by evidence."
He is on the board of Directors of "Truth in Science" Limited Company, developing course material for challenging Evolution and teaching Intelligent Design in British schools: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/191/82/ http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/43/92/
Yet I see the WIT has appointed him to the International Scientific Advisory Council for this conference: http://www.witpress.com/contents/c1663.pdf
So will the Wessex Institute of Technology make a similar statement as the University of Leeds has done in distancing themselves from these ideas as well? One along the lines from the American Institute of the Advancement of Science would seem suitable: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml (149.117.23.28 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

please see above --Curuxz 08:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Stub Article for Wessex Institute of Technology[edit]

Since the page is marked as a university stub article we would now like to expand the page to bring it in line with other academic pages on Wikipedia. The WIT website has been used as a base for information and images will be added shortly. This should greatly improve the article for the end user by giving factual and accurate information on the activities of WIT.

Regarding the former stub article, and its “controversy” section we feel that considering that other academic institutions have far larger controversial issues that are not mentioned on their academic pages it seems unreasonable to refer to controversial issues on the WIT page as it detracts from the value by making it very negative and one sided. Wikipedia is not a forum for venting personal grievances and therefore the reference to Videa is inappropriate and biased as it relates to an incident which occurred in 1995 and only on one point of view (thus violating the POV guidelines). Additionally the part about Creationism gives the impression that WIT endorses its author's views which, like almost all meeting organisers and publishers, they do not. They make it clear that the authors ideas' are theirs alone.

This article has now been brought in line with the rules of Wikipedia which reflect the style and quality of other academic pages and firmly follows the rules regarding point of view. If there continues to be a feeling that the WIT page should be different from other academic pages and include personal views on WIT activities then it is suggested that the page is submitted for arbitration before making any alterations to this page. We have also removed the stub tag as hopefully this article can now be considered complete. --Curuxz 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wales attribution[edit]

Can we drill into the University of Wales association, some more. There are a couple of points that trouble me; but let me start by stating that I understand that UoW does act as the validating authority for the WIT:

  • The article is currently categorised as "University of Wales". This is to me, misleading. As far as I can determine from studying the UoW website, the only publicised link between the two institutions is that UoW acts as the validating authority for the WIT. The current categorisation may lead a reader to suspect a closer association - such as that WIT is a "constituent institution of the University of Wales", as, for instance, "The University of Wales, Aberystwyth", is.[8] I'm happy to accept that UoW wishes WIT to state that it is "associated with UoW", however despite their wishes, I'd hope that Wikipedia would set its own standards for its information delivery, and in this instance reserve to right to specify exactly the nature and limit of the association.
  • The article provides no information on the formation, history or charter of the Institute. So, for me, it exists in a void right now. Is there any more that can be said about this? What is its governance? From which sources is it funded?

More generally, I suspect we may be missing in wikipedia (or I have not found) generic information on institutions of the class of which WIT is a member - presumably self-standing institutions which rely on a third-party institution for degree validation.

I'll state, for the avoidance of doubt, that I'm not seeking to knock or diminish WIT, but rather to describe exactly and as completely as is warranted in a short article, what WIT is and what it is not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would question the person that put this page into the UoW category, however at the time I did not attempt to reverse the move since there did not seem to be another more appropriate place for this article. The way in which we write "associated with UoW" can not be changed since that's how they require it but perhaps including a section on what that affiliation is, Ie. that the degrees at WIT are validated by UoW would be a good idea.
The only remotely similar institutions I can find, as listed on the UoW page on wikipedia, are Coleg Harlech WEA and Llandrillo College which it lists as "Validated institutions" if this is the same thing as WIT then maybe their could be a category of Validated institutions of the UoW that this page, along with that of the other two could be in.
I would agree with "More generally, I suspect we may be missing in wikipedia (or I have not found) generic information on institutions of the class of which WIT is a member - presumably self-standing institutions which rely on a third-party institution for degree validation. " However I do not know of any other similar Instiution, maybe someone else does that we could compare this too. --Curuxz 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, the new category seems more appropriate. --Curuxz 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIDEA Controversy[edit]

This controversy is well known in science publishing circles, but I agree that it could do with better sourcing. I fully agree that the other "controversy", previously included, has been correctly removed. Here is the changed text I added that has been removed:

==VIDEA Conference peer-review controversy== {{expand-section}} In 1995, WIT organised the VIDEA 1995 conference. Professor Werner Purgathofer, of Vienna University of Technology and a member of the VIDEA 1995 program committee, became suspicious of the conference's peer review standards after not receiving any abstracts or papers for review. To test his suspicions, Professor Werner Purgathofer wrote four absurd and nonsensical abstracts and submitted them to the conference. All were "reviewed and conditionally accepted. He subsequently resigned from the program committee.[1][2]

I'll try to find more refs for this, but if anyone else can expand this here or suggest improvements or better references please add them here too. Adding the universities opinion for balance would be good too. This controversy is also referenced elsewhere on wp. Verbal chat 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are definitely two sides to this story and if we could get WIT press releases or the original emails sent (from mailing list archives) those would make good extra references. The addition above is way too one sided. Verbal chat 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the THES for 07 April 1995, WIT was proposing to sue TUV for libel [9]. Did that happen, and was it reported in a WP:RS? Richard Pinch (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Copyvio[edit]

In trying to find the establishment date for the institute I discovered that large parts of the page are apparently lifted directly from the institute website. I've therefore tagged this as a copyvio until this is resolved. Please follow the instructions on the article page to help fix this. Verbal chat 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, here is the full process. Not all, if any, of these steps have been done:
  • If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License:
    Explain this on this article's discussion page, then either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under the GFDL.
Verbal chat 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed on the copyright questions board here. Some further changes may be required. Verbal chat 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to this page[edit]

Without wishing to seem like a personal attack in any way this user has come onto this wikipedia page and seems to have failed to read any of the previous discussion, instead opting to place a copyright message and attempt to place material that was already agreed inappropriate on the page. It is in view of this that I have reverted their edits and ask that all edits are discussed FIRST on here rather than simply actioned.

With the page restored we can now discuss the issues this user has raised:

On this issue of "VIDEA Controversy" we have had numerous debates on this and it is clearly the community view that this information should not be included in any form on this page. It is clear that certain people have a personal 'axe to grind' on this issue but I would respectively remind them this is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. It has long been established that genuine controversial issues should not be included, please see the example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_university, now Oxford has massive protests both for and against its vivisection practices and yet there is no mention of this controversy on it's page.I could go on with a massive list of genuinely controversial issues (try running a google search on the UK for "university controversy" and you will see more than enough) But these are not found on academic pages within wikipedia. This is not the place for them so please desist in your vandalism.

As for the copyright issue, this is a total non-issue. Had the user Verbal read through the previous discussion they will see clearly that material was lifted from the wessex.ac.uk website with full permission clearly following wikipedia guidelines, additionally another impartial user updated the text to remove and marketing style copy from the text. See my "Expansion of Stub Article for Wessex Institute of Technology" post on this page and the discussion under the title "NPOV" which clearly states my COI and my reasons for editing with permission. However so that you can not continue to try and use copyright as a tool in inappropriately adding the above material I point you to http://www.wessex.ac.uk/wikipedia.html

I think for both matters these issues are closed. --Curuxz (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove copyvio warnings until the matter has been resolved by an administrator. Also, remember to assume good faith and be civil in your comments and edit summaries. Has the website text been made available under the GNU Free Documentation License? I see nothing to that effect on this page, nor any comment discussing copyright. It should be made clear if this is the case. Has the link you have provided been vetted by wikipdia copyvio people? I see no evidence to that effect, so please provide it. A license just for wikipedia is not enough.Verbal chat 12:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be a little more constructive, it would be useful if the wording of the wessex page was changed from:
For the purposes of copyright all information about the institute on our website of wessex.ac.uk can be considered GPL licensed
to
For the purposes of copyright all information about the institute on our website of wessex.ac.uk is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
If that is done, or if an authorised representative of wessex confirms via the Wikipedia:OTRS system that it is happy that wessex.ac.uk text is reproduced in wikipedia under the GFDL, then the copyvio issue evaporates, and the notice can be removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and a summary notice is placed on this page too. However, the copyvio process must be completed by an editor. Also, the text must be released under license for all uses; not just for wikipedia. Thanks. Verbal chat 12:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Releasing it under the GFDL achieves that end. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A problem with the current page linked to is quite specific in limiting it to wikipedia. Verbal chat 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence provides a limited permission. The second sentence - if redrafted - would provide a blanket permission, rendering the first sentence redundant. Your point is well made, though: a limited permission for wikipedia is not acceptable, since content in wikipedia must be GFDL and hence available to all comers under the terms of that licence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, as it is it's contradictory and poorly worded, and I doubt wp copyrights people would accept it. Thanks. Verbal chat 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Thank you Tagishsimon for your advice, the copyright page has been altered to your suggestion thus ending the need for a copyright message, please could it be removed. This still however does resolve the fact that the user Verbal adding the 'controversy' section against wikipedia policy and the consensus without discussion and must agree to stop unilaterally adding this material. This is not a personal attack, its simply their actions as demonstrated in the history of this page. --Curuxz (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio warning can only be removed by an administrator. Please desist in your improper allegations of misconduct. Please look above this section for my additions to the talk page, and I have not improperly reinserted material or acted against any wikipedia policy. For reference, stating that a personal attack is not a personal attack does not make that true. Please calm down and join in the discussions calmly and civilly. Verbal chat 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a note on WP:AN soliciting input from an admin to close down this issue, and/or to advise whether any other action (e.g. OTRS) needs to be taken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. My intention was to fix this by-the-book, and not cause excessive wikidrama. Verbal chat 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::I am perfectly calm and please can I remind you to asume good faith in your comments you seem to be taking this very personal yet if you check the history you edited the article on 14:19, 20 August 2008 adding the material that the discussion on this page has clearly established as inappropriate later that day at 15:26 you added your reasons for this unilateral edit and no one else communicated with you on this matter. This is not an allegation of misconduct it is in the history log of the page. We have consensus, we have precedent in the other academic pages, this issue has proved to be a contentious one even resulting in bans of users in the past for trying to place this material on and yet without discussing it at all you posted in the material on the page then over an hour later came back and stated your intention to do so, this ignores previous discussion and does not give any chance for others to agree or disagree. Please explain where you think I am treating you unfairly you seem to grasp wikipedia rules yet do not wish to discuss with others before making edits or add to the already large amount of discussion on this issue. Please again remember good faith and to read others comments in full, this is not personal. --Curuxz (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked user Curuxz to remove or refactor the above comment. Verbal chat 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment date[edit]

The "established" date needs to be added to the info box (and would be good in the article). A quick google has failed to locate this information. Does anyone know the year? Verbal chat 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is 1986 but I will check it out today before confirming.--Curuxz (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

As I have been asked on my talk page I thought I'd make it clear here that I have no conflict of interest in editing this page; I am not in any way associated with WIT or anyone involved with it, including the "controversies" or in any other direct or indirect manner. For reference, user Curuxz states above that he is "an employee at the institute but acting in a personal capacity and as such all views are [his] own". Any other possible conflicts of interest should be appended to this section for ease of reference. Verbal chat 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still a little confused as to your interest hence asking for the COI statement. You said in your initial statement "This controversy is well known in science publishing circles" well that clearly implies you are in such circles and since you have clearly stated you do not work for WIT then you logically must work or be involved in some way with a competitor hence COI. That was my only reason for asking since the others here are intent on making this page like other acedemic pages and with all due respect adding the controversy section would not hence its a break from convention and makes me question why such a minor page on a minor issue needs to be the one exception to the rule, if you do not work in the industry its fine I only wanted to clarify where you achived this insight. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an employee of the French government. Please stop these unfounded personal attacks. You really shouldn't view other institutions as "competitors". There are, as I have said to you, many other academic pages that include controversies - so long as they can be ascribed to RS. WIT is currently an exception in that the page reads like a brochure. Verbal chat 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ment as a personal attack in anyway and I think its a more than reasonable request given the history of this page, and the nature of those that have tried to add this material in the past, without wishing to imply they are in any way involved with you simply that as a wikipeidan user we have no way of knowing that unless you expressly declare why you are adding the same content, all be it modified and resourced. No offense was intended and you have my sincerest apologies if any was caused I only wish to make this page equal to that on other UK higher education pages. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's forget about it. I'd still appreciate your removal of the comment above I have asked you about. All the best Verbal chat 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and tone[edit]

Some of the claims made on this article, although I don't doubt them, need references to back them up - and a link back to the original copy doesn't cut it. For things like collaborations and funding, citing the funding body's site mentioning WIT should be ok, and the same for collaborating institutions.

The tone of the article is also not encyclopaedic. It is quite clear that the text is taken from the institute website due to words such as "outstanding" and "prestigious". These terms should be avoided and not made in wikipedia's voice. They can however be ascribed to someone or appear in a quote. Verbal chat 08:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did have another editor try and clean up the page and remove the marketing style of the text as posted above it was more done for time reasons to bring it into line with other academic pages when this one was marked as a stub, but I agree some of it could use some work. If you would let me know which parts you need citations for I will do my best to find them. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged some of the claims. Basically any claim that isn't standard (standard such as you run courses) needs a citation. It'd be great if you could have a go at this. Verbal chat 08:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am having those checked out along with the establishment dates. Do you want them here first or strait onto the sources? --Curuxz (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You may as well put them straight in, but citations can be a pain if you've never done them. See wp:cite. Verbal chat 08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll post them here first just to be sure, if you would not mind having a quick check.

Are these acceptable?

As for the date it is 1986 please see the 2006 research report "http://www.wessex.ac.uk/research/Research_Report_06_screen.pdf"

Regards --Curuxz (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those look great. Feel free to add them. Note, as you seem to be able to get things moving at that end, that there is still discussion regarding the copyright stuff (I noted that in the section above). Perhaps you can ask exactly what is needed. Verbal chat 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

I'm quite concerned about the tone. Even though statements can be sourced does not mean they need to be included. After all, I suppose that the WIT building has a roof on top but that needn't be mentioned, unless of course the roof is noteworthy in itself (it would be noteworthy if it didn't!). A good rule of thumb, especially for statements sourced to the institution itself, would be whether it differs what what one might reasonably expect in an institution of this kind. For example, none of the underlined phrases these distinguish WIT from any other UK university as they stand, they are just what one would expect, and hence convey essentially no information:

  • The current research programmes at this Institute continue to be supported by the EU, NATO, industry and other prestigious organizations.
  • The International Master Programme on Information Systems, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, which is supported by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office attracted students from the Ukraine. A number of students who have completed their Master degree are now registered on full-time PhD programmes at this Institute.
  • The International Master Programme in Environmental Electromagnetic Compatibility organised by the Wessex Institute and administered by the British Council supported a number of Croatian students. Some are currently registered on the PhD programme at WIT.
  • Many scientists visit WIT present short courses and seminars on a variety of topics.
  • A particular feature of WIT conferences is that papers presented are available in hard-back book format, in time for each conference, as well as being available online.

"Prestigious" is a peacock word too. Is it significant that students come from the Ukraine or Croatia? Are these masters courses different in any way from masters courses at other UK universities? OTOH a commitment to Open Access publishing is unusual and hence worth consideration.

Comments about the journals are inflated too. I would write

WIT publishes a Transactions (of what? conferences?) and publishes/sponsors/whatever specialist journals Ecodymamics, Sustainable Development and Planning and Design and Nature.

Only wikilink the word if it links to an article on the journal, not the subject.

Another paragraph conveying rather little is

A substantial number of PhDs have been awarded by the institute, and many who have carried out research at WIT have positions of responsibility in academic institutions and industry.[citation needed] Some have gone on to become professors at some of the best UK Universities; including Imperial College, Nottingham and Brunel,[citation needed] whilst others are now professors in Universities within their country of origin.[citation needed]

(Again "best" is a peacock term here.) Better to just say "WIT awards X Masters degrees in Y subjects and Z Doctoral degrees a year" (or "awarded ... in AY 2007/8"). Incidentally the remark about a substantial number of degrees is repeated further down.

As it stands this article reads far too much like marketing. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some duplication and revised the wikilinks mentioned. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent attempt to restore October version[edit]

I would point out that:

  1. WP:V states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." General references are not sufficient for such material.
  2. Sourcing an article almost entirely to the topic's own website violates both WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS (and probably puts it in grave danger of violating WP:ADVERTISING).

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP is from the Wessex Institute - I've tagged the talk page. So WP:COI also applies. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP made another attempt to resurrect WIT Press‎. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI edits[edit]

We've had four recent potential COI edits:

  • [10]: Note that Beall's list is no longer maintained.
  • [11]: Update of reference to 2017.
  • [12]: Note that the controversial conference was organised in the past, and is not current.
  • [13]: Mention of conferences

The second and third diffs are not controversial, so I don't see a problem with either. The first I think is important to mention - as Beall no longer maintains the list, it is now not possible to be removed, so publishers on that list who have since changed practices won't be updated. Thus it seems like significant context. The last I've toned back, but it seems worth mentioning that the run conferences, given that we criticize their conferences later on. Accordingly, I've removed the COI tag, is it seems to be ok. - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of research[edit]

The WIT website current makes no mention of its staff or students, teaching programmes, qualifications and accrediting body. It appears to be an organisation that arranges conferences and publishes conference proceedings, journals and books. Unless there are RS to demonstrate that it is an educational body, the text should be revised to describe it as essentially a commercial publisher.Martinlc (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three links under the "Research" heading but they're all 404-compliant. A quick Google Scholar search shows a few journal articles published by authors with WIT affiliations, so I'd be inclined to say the statement that they do research is OK. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable inference but it requires editors to do their own research. It is reasonable to expect a genuine research institute to have a list of staff and current research projects, grants received, REF rating, and list of publications. The publicly-available information from WIT does nothing to distinguish it from a small academic publishing house relying on page fees to break even. It seems that it used to have an active post-grad research provision but there is nothing to indicate that still does.Martinlc (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed two of the dead links. As the third would have to rely on on archived version, and wasn't really needed, I killed that one to keep things simple. WIT provide an annual research report through their website, and they provide information about some of their research and visiting staff. They are listed in the UK Government's list of "listed bodies", which means that they do not confer degrees themselves, but are acknowledged as providing degrees with other institutions who confer the award. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the education issue, they run short courses along with supervising postgraduate students. They may not be a degree-granting institution, but I think we can still describe them as providing education, unless we have some evidence that they no longer plan to do these things. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wessex_Institute_of_Technology&oldid=1201110510"