Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave the box at the top. We are striving to mark all proposed policies in a uniform way so that there is no confusion as to their status. Thanks, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Examples

Re: University of Texas at Austin. Don't you think including specific examples of academic boosterism might be helpful? I had already begun discussing that particular example on its talk page, but I thought it might be helpful for others viewing THIS article to see a good example of what the article is talking about. H2O 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is a general guideline, and we should avoid carrying disputes about specific articles out of their Talk pages by linking them here. (It wouldn't be a good idea to link even to specific article revisions, which is a better way to go than plain wikilinks when a particular wording is in question, since Wikipedia articles are always changing). I think that examples of boosterish wording, if added to this guideline, should be quoted without the name of the institution whose article they come from. A collection of examples might be useful, but only without the invitation to bring specific article-content disputes to this page. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable - I would be happy to post some examples of what I consider boosterism and leave out the names of the alleged offenders. I do think that this might be helpful and a way to subject these examples to the review of some disinterested third parties. H2O 00:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Can you pull out the specific phrases that are in your judgment examples of boosterism? I think we should be looking for examples like the ones at Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, for instance: brief and specific bits of language that should wave red flags to readers once they've been made aware of the issue. From your example, the phrases that really stick out to me, that I think deserve to be highlighted as possible boosterism, are:
  • "No public or private university in [the region] can match the breadth and quality of the university's research endeavors" -- uses undefined and disputable terms "breadth and quality" to create a vague impression of excellence
  • "[the university] is consistently ranked as the best public university in the state and as one of the best public universities in the nation" -- ranked by whom? and how consistently? surely not every organization ranking universities agrees on this.
-- Rbellin|Talk 04:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I made the changes - feel free to tweak as you think necessary - I will add other examples from other schools as I come across them. H2O 17:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why academia?

The page notes that academic boosting is a common form found on Wikipedia. Is this because WP is written by students? Pcb21| Pete 07:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a POV by people on a crusade against academic boosterism. Lots of "boosting" of all kinds is on Wikipedia. I haven't found the academic kind particularly unique or outstanding. --C S (Talk) 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have found academic boosterism outstanding. The entire university articles category is defined by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.180 (talk • contribs)
It's more likely due to the fact that many (likely the majority) of Wikipedia editors are in college, aspire to be in college, or have already graduate from college. I reach this conclusion simply by the fact that the Wikipedia editors are online and comfortable using relatively advanced Internet technology (online collaborative editing with strangers is not a common activity for most people). Simply put, most Wikipedia editors are on the side of Digital Divide populated largely by the more affluent and privileged. This is speculative but I also suspect this also has a strong effect on the tone and content of Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Terms such as "elite" and "highly selective" are precisely those used, understood, and accepted in academia as criteria for defining excellence, and identifying the institutions which meet those criteria. If the objection to their use on Wikipedia is that they're "vague" or easily misunderstood, then a greater attempt should be made by the community to define them more precisely for a non-academic audience. I'll be happy to contribute to that effort. But the policy as it currently exists seeks to avoid both vagueness and burying the reader in statistics. Okay. If I say that I graduated from an elite, highly selective liberal arts college, I will be accused of being vague and engaging in academic boosterism, but if I say that my alma mater has ranked in the top ten in the US News ratings for every year since 19-whatever, I will be accused of burying the reader in statistics. Either we accept reputational words like "elite" at face value, or we must accept the method by which such statements are documented. As it is, it seems to be a no-win situation for anyone seeking to discuss a college or university's academic reputation as part of its Wikipedia page. And academic reputation is one of the most important pieces of information that such an article should convey. But arbitrarily excising mention of any such praise as POV, and condemning factually accurate statements about the existence of an institution's reputation as "academic boosterism" removes important, accurate information from an institution's article. JTRH 16:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with burying the reader in statistics (as long as those statistics are from reputable sources). The term "elite" is not objective. The same is true for "highly selective." Also, reputations are held in the mind of certain people. To avoid "burying the reader in statistics" and using vague terms like "elite," why not quote a reputable source that calls a given school "elite"? LaszloWalrus 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a generally accepted definition of "selectivity." It has to do with the percentage of applicants who are accepted (lower = more selective), and the percentage of those accepted who choose to enroll (higher = more selective). A "highly selective" school is one which combines these two: it accepts a relatively small percentage of its applicants, but is the first choice of most of those who are accepted, so that's where they choose to attend. So there is an objective (and verifiable) measure of selectivity at least in terms of comparisons among schools, and a statement such as "Harvard is more selective than the University of XYZ" is based on objective criteria. If it's possible to be "more selective," then it's possible to be "highly selective." The acceptance/attendance data for a given school are usually publicly reported; it's in the US News rankings, at least for the schools that continue to participate in them. And I'm sure I can find documentation of the definition, but rather than reporting acceptance/attendance data on every school's page, perhaps the use of the word "selective" in a school's article, as shorthand for the above, should be linked to a page explaining the specific meaning of the term as it's being presented?
"Reputation," on the other hand, is inherently subjective (but important), and much of it is word of mouth within academic communities. There are objective criteria for measuring it, e.g., an undergraduate college develops a "reputation" as a particularly "good" school if a large percentage of its alumni go on to earn Ph.D.'s. But most of a school's "reputation" is generally derived from asking people (whose authority on the subject is generally accepted) what they think of a particular school. You can't get much more POV than that. Does that mean a discussion of a school's "reputation" should be excluded from Wikipedia because it's the product of subjective opinions? I don't think it's POV to make a factual, verifiable statement that a school has a given reputation. ("Duke is a good school" is not the same statement as "Duke has a reputation for academic excellence.") The statement that Duke has a reputation for academic excellence is completely objective, NPOV, and accurate.
I raise these issues because LaszloWalrus and I had a conversation a few weeks ago about the Haverford College page (my alma mater), when he deleted something which, in his view, contained academic boosterism (and I see that he's made the same sorts of edits to several college and university pages, which is why I invited him to this discussion). He referred me to the definition of AB on the main page connected to this talk page. As a result, I wrote a sentence for the Haverford article containing links to the US News rankings for 2006 and 2007 in an attempt to to offer pieces of objective, verifiable evidence of the school's academic quality. Not long afterward, someone removed the statement and accompanying links as "unnecessary." That's why I made the statement about the appearance of a no-win situation. JTRH 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
First, I would suggest sticking to the definition of selectivity given by the 2005 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Undergraduate profile. I offer that suggestion as the Carnegie Foundation is much more uncontroversial than others (USN&WR) that offer their own definitions.
I'll look into the Haveford article and, if so moved, make a comment or two there. Even if one disregards their inherent problems and surrounding controversy, it seems that I've seen the USN&WR rankings cited poorly and incorrectly more often than they are cited correctly in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Further, I would be extraordinarily pleased if there were a movement to include the 2005 Carnegie classifications in every article about US institutions of higher education (that are classified by Carnegie; unaccredited institutions would be the largest group left out). The 2005 classifications are multi-faceted, informative, and interesting. They express and define succinctly and from a very reliable source many characteristics that editors struggle to express and define on their own (witness the above discussion of selectivity as a prime example). --ElKevbo 21:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If others are objecting to the inclusion of verifiable and notable statistics in favor of vague, ill-defined, and likely POV terms like "elite", please direct me to those conversations as I completely disagree and believe that our policies support my assertions and arguments. I reject your assertion that such terms are "understood and accepted in academia" and I can cite several recent developments surrounding rankings to support my assertion if you would like (the Annapolis Group's moves to their own assessment/rankings, the NSSE/USA Today partnership, etc.).
If others categorize particular institutions as "elite" or "highly selective" then we can certainly cite those sources but we must not make such judgements ourselves. However, there is certainly room for discussion and each case should be considered separately. I have noticed a tendency to place undue weight on favorable rankings or statistics and omission or downplaying of unfavorable rankings or statistics and that clearly shouldn't be done for POV reasons. --ElKevbo 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking no position on the US News rankings vs. anyone else's, I'm offering US News as an example because they're the rankings with which I'm most familiar. But if I'm interpreting the Academic Boosterism policy correctly, terms such as "elite" are supposed to be avoided even if one is reporting (and documenting) that it's the opinion of several external sources that the University of XYZ is an "elite" institution. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for hearing me out. JTRH 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I would hope (and it is my policy) that we would evaluate each situation on its own merits. I'm sure that you can understand the general caution we all practice since it's relatively easy to find someone somewhere who has written or said nice things about any institution. It's probably better to simply avoid the issue altogether to avoid our own inherent POV and biases. --ElKevbo 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, and well said. My concern is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus in the community; how might we bring this to the attention of a larger number of Wikipedians who might be interested in this discussion? JTRH 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities might be a good place to start. --ElKevbo 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. JTRH 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first example

is as follows:

... is consistently ranked as the best public university in the state and as one of the best public universities in the nation. (2nd line in the intro of a well known state university)

I don't really see how this is an example of boosterism. Boosterism is the statement of unverifiable (nebulous) and POV claims, like "best school in California" or "at the forefront of American universities." They aren't provable or disprovable; they're just characterizations, and as they serve to promote a positive impression of the subject, they're not NPOV.

This example, on the other hand, states a very concrete fact that can be verified. If the citation is a New York Times article saying "The University of Podunk regularly places in the top five of U.S. News & World Report's rankings of public universities," or if multiple citations show that the university is highly placed by multiple rankers, how can this be a violation of NPOV or verifiability?

In short, I think this example should be removed. Dylan 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's responded, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it with something else. Dylan (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)