User talk:Dtorgerson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Analogies, threats, and general awesomeness with COYW
Dtorgerson cannot address a point, so mudslinging and a scorched-eart approach is all he has to offer. Enjoy his editing montage below. I did. COYW (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For the past few months, I've been engaged in some verbal sparing with another editor. I'd wish I could say that I always rise above the fray and post articulate well thought out arguments, but Wikipedia is no fairy-tale world. Of course, this is my page so I can pretend I'm mature.
If you disagree with a person's point compare that person to Hitler. Failing that, a good pedophile analogy will do.
- I reckon that pedophiles get put on Web site registries because they don't willingly disclose the fact to their community. First point: Pedophiles who do make a disclosure will not claim transparency as their virtue after neighbours reject them. [What's the matter? I am the one who told you I chase kiddies!] Second point: No, I am not calling you a pedophile. Third point: I doubt a normal (?) pedophile would dare point fingers. ["Hey! Nobody's perfect. Maybe YOU are a pedophile and we just don't know it! Prove to me you do NOT chase kids."] Fourth point: No, I'm still not calling you a pedophile. It's just a logical analogy and a pretty robust one as analogies go. Last point: I am not happy that you threaten to change my edits and then confound discussion-- like you have done above. All this stuff detracts from working on the page... you know, the reason why I am here. You should not be here. COYW (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Should I be scared, reflect on my time in college, or watch John Hughes movies too for witty comebacks?
- Have I told you repeatedly NOT to post within my posts? Above or below, but not within. Is this "mock outrage", too? The world awaits your call, College-boy. COYW (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, I don't need to be scared
- The number is 9-1-1, I believe. Go knock youself out! --HAHA! [And, incidentally, do not post within my posts. I am forced to respond in kind and the page becomes less readable.]
Do as I say, not as I do.. It's a repeat, but it's extra delicious. It's unlike a fly in your chardonnay.
- I am serious about no longer wanting to work with that editor, yet he still posts on my talkpage
- Have I told you repeatedly NOT to post within my posts? Above or below, but not within. Is this "mock outrage", too? The world awaits your call, College-boy. COYW (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I know where the awesomeness is... Where are the threats? Let me repeat: If you wish, I can delete what I have put up until, say, five editors have had a look and comment. Are you here for working on Wiki-pages or to take the piss out of me? I post, you revert. You post, I revert that. You state that my edits are 'the changes'. Whatever. Neither one of us represents a consensus so I am more than willing to clear the God-damned page of my work to get along. I have tried different mechanisms on Wikipedia. How about YOU trying something positive instead of whinging? Let me emphasize it: I can delete what I have put up until, say, five editors have had a look and comment. COYW (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not trying to take the piss out of you: a) I don't take this that seriously and b) despite what you may think, I have more to think about than you. You might want to consider lightening up a little. There's more to life than the Schulich article on wikipedia and some jerk named Damon Torgerson. I know how you enjoy spelling out my full name whenever you get the chance so I thought I'd beat you to the punch.
- My goal is not to have you erase your work. My goal is to have the article presented objectively and with as little bias as possible. That's it. I certainly have no desire to "cheer" the school. Please don't interpret that as the other side of the argument (e.g., negative view of the school), somethings are more complicated than you're with us or against us. So where are we really? We're not that far off and I think we have similar end-goals. But I think we need to solve one issue at a time. Can we do that here? As I see it, we have two arguments:
- The name(s) of the rankings section
- The presentation of the rankings within the section
- Can we deal with the name(s) argument first? I've created a section below for it.
[edit] Name of Ranking Section
Here is the argument: as there is no established, objective criteria available to separate MBA rankings, all MBA rankings should fall under one section. Now, what is your rebuttal?
OK! I'll give it a shot...
- 'Established'?: Because my editing is something new there is no established criterion to cite as a precedent. I have written this a number of times.
- 'Objective'?: Global rankings are just that. They are not "U.S." or "Non-U.S." ones. Global rankings are not limited to either "One-year" or "Two-year" programmes. Are you seriously saying that is not black and white enough for you? How about a minimum of four criteria for a survey to get into the Global rankings section? This is open to argument. Certainly, one can argue the relative merits of surveys with three vs four, four vs five and five vs six criteria. Please admit that having just one criterion, like some rankings do, is clearly different in kind. I do not know how much milk can go into a cup of coffee and still be able to call it cafe-au-lait. What I do know is that coffee with just one drop of milk and milk with just one drop of coffee are something other. Metaphors aside, I am telling you again that the worthwhile work of the Aspen Institute is different in kind. It should not be thrown together with (relatively more) global rankings for reasons I have described elsewhere.
You have not rebutted any of my arguments in the slightest, and are now trumpeting the lack of "objective criteria". Don't you own a car? Did the realisation that you could not possibly weight, in an objective way, your purchase criteria stop you from buying the car? Even if some of the criteria themselves were objective, like the price or estimated gasoline consumption, you could not establish, in an a priori way, a fixed weighting for your criteria. It was a ultimately a matter of opinion, but you still bought your car, didn't you? Yours was just one subjective approach for your one car. Other approaches are equally valid. Metaphors aside, I am telling you again that my editing translates well to all promotional rankings on all B-school sites and not just this one. I have already explained why. Your way doesn't and I have already explained why not.
How about addressing the three criteria of readability, utility and fairness? Granted these are subjective merits, but that's life. Wikipedia is all about being bold and progressive, and I have repeatedly supported my edits respecting these three criteria. I made a case. You wrote: "Now, what is your rebuttal?" Oh, puh-leeeze! Show your case first, then you can have a rebuttal. Actually, you have failed to make any case beyond your simple opinion and preference. When you lay that very charge against me, I cannot help but laugh at the three fingers pointing back at you as you point one at me. On a final note, I did offer to accept something neutral on the page while your COI issue is being resolved... I should have my head examined. I withdraw that olive branch. COYW (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict of Interest
- I think you sould think long and hard-- or longer and harder-- about posting on the Schulich page. Being an alum is one thing. Acting biased when you post and make comments is another. Both raise questions about COI. When you write about being held to a higher standard, it is not shown in your edits and comments.
- This is my third attempt at a doing something formal inside of Wikipedia conventions. You will be caught out eventually because you have no real stance worth defending. You are biased, really biased, and post in conflict of interest. Cease and desist until you are clear from these charges (as if!). If you wish, I can delete what I have put up until, say, five editors have had a look and comment. Otherwise, I do not know what else to write. Certainly stop writing to me. Just stop that. I am not interested.
- This is just a heads up as per the rules. Anyhow, I've done it now... and good luck to you.COYW (talk)
[edit] Debate with COYW
Below is a complete copy of the Schlich School of Business discussion page. Nearly all the comments were made between myself and COYW. At the request of a few other editors, I moved the debate from the discussion page to my page, as they felt it detracted from the discussion about the school.
It follows below, unedited
[edit] A Final Word
You made two lists for teachers and alumni, right? You did not start with one and then make two, OK. I did not mean that. My point is that there is an organisation to your two lists. They could both be lumped together as one, but they are separated into two. Even if you are 'simply' following conventions of other "top-tier", "flagship", "give-DTORGERSON-a-big-stiffie" schools, there is a logic to separating the lists. Some editor made a choice. There were reasons.
Two lists make that information more user-friendly.
Two lists make the information more accessible.
Easier to digest.
Better.
Separate lists even help people "make sense" of information, because it subtly changes the information.
Since rankings are on the page, and must be presented one way or another, I like my way. Why? I have written why my one change is an improvement. Why don't you like it? You have written. Yeah, I don't expect that you like having your rejoinders dismissed as off-the-point and incongruous, but here we are.
If you discussed the work in a more civil way, I'd be interested to talk more with you. Oh, my! Don't cry, "Moi?" before admitting that editing first and talking second is provocative. You do that.
What's more, I do not need to know your name, relationship with the school or honeymoon status. Since you wrote these things to me, I then wanted to know if Schulich was paying you (not that I'd learn just by asking....). You wrote: 'I accept that I write with bias and feel that you [=COYW] should know where my bias comes from so that we can try our best to eliminate bias from the article.' Does this need to be written? How gauche?! I wonder what you meant by the second part of the sentence. In practical terms. You know what? Whatever. OK, thanks for that.
Your work should speak for itself and it is either disingenuous or naive in the extreme to proceed as you have done. Yet, you have told me even more: "The more we try to spin things here, the less credible we appear." ?????? Do you want to appear credible, DTORGERSON? Why? Does "we" mean Schulich? Does "we" mean editors? (No! Don't answer!)
I want the work to appear credible. That is my agenda, by the way. Kind of a common one, dontcha think? Is that what you want, too. At this point, you and your work both seem far from credible. You've discredited yourself in my view. You don't read carefully enough to discuss, you stay off topic, and you cannot express yourself without gagging on your own foot... so my interest in working with you is now out the window.
I don't want even to give you the many positives that you deserve because that is another discussion. You ain't humble enough to praise.... or you are too arrogant to appreciate the compliment.
When I read you use words below like "courage" and "win", so out of place, I have to call time on any discussion with you.
Toodles. COYW 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I debated you, openly and honestly. I provided evidence for each of my positions. I apologized when I made mistakes. I revealed my identity in an effort to promote open and transparent debate and to provide you with a clear understanding of my potential bias. I agreed to third party mediation with the party of your choice. I asked you to define a criteria for your taxonomy so that I could understand what would fall under "Rankings" and "Other Rankings" For whatever reason, you declined all of these opportunities.
You have not defended yourself nor provided any sound argument to support your point of view other than "my way is better." When you run into trouble, you attack me personally as being "disingenuous" or some other nonsense. I don't mind the personal attacks. In fact, I find them spectacularly awesome. The fact that you would think that I would care whether I receive personal praise or condescension from you, speaks more to you than to me. That you were so important; that is the very definition of arrogance. Regardless, as a debating tactic, they are strictly bush league.
Should you wish to seek mediation with a third party (still of your choice) or should you wish to debate these issues, I will be here and happy to oblige.Dtorgerson 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General Discussion
Where are the rankings from famous publications? They are all gone except for two. This page looks better and more organized than the last time I looked. Don't overdo it and bring the yahoos to deface the page. Where is the old talk page?
Whoever wrote about Gareth Morgan should put a link to him. Surely, there are more famous alumni from Schulich. What about that Brenda Stronach (?) politician. Her name used to be on the page.
According to the Belinda Stronach wiki page, she attended York for one year and then dropped out. Since she did not earn a degree, she is not an alumnae.Dtorgerson 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the information in point form could be better read on the official site rather than the Wikipedia page, but it is a bit harsh to delete it. It is true info and kind of useful, too. If you felt that was advertising, how did you miss the "tagline"?! I think that is useless information. It is the advertising catchphrase of the school, isn't it? What's more, it is misleading. Do you know if you took away all the Indian and Chinese students, there would not be so many foreign students in their MBA programme? So, how can it be 'global'? I'm sure that I am missing something and there is some explanation, but I haven't heard it. THAT explanation must go on the page. Who is going to justify that tagline?
Also, you are right about filling out the headers. I prefer a "Notable Schulich People" section that combines the alumni & staff (Gareth Morgan?? I remember meeting him and immediately forgot him! Why he is 'famous' should rightly be written up... at least a link to a page of his or about him.). One editor on here now is against having separate headers for comprehensive rankings/reviews and specialised/narrow ones. That is the same editor who wrote up a header for a two-item list. In the end, you have to wait and give people time to follow through.
Talk first and edit second, people! There is no rush.
Most universities in the world do not even have a Wikipage. Most departments/colleges/schools that operate in those "universities certainly do not have their own distinct page. I note that about 60% or so of the top-twenty MBA schools have "Rankings" as a separate header, but if you check out ALL the schools around Schulich's rank and beyond, this percentage goes down precipitously. So, should we have this section at all? I say yes, but we should also help the users along to make sense of these numbers.
This is all to say, too, that York should still have a page and all other universities should follow suite. Different departments can have a page and others can follow suite, as well. I believe all rankings are a dirty business, but I am not one for censorship; they should also be includeded, with some contextual and research methodology info. An entire articlecan be written about the money made from ranking schools! In one sense, rankings are pretty much like a school's tagline: an advertising tool that is best left to the official school page. Some people with agendas or "self-recognition disorder" don't get it and should have their edits scrutinised.
Our Schulich Wikipage can be improved greatly with added context about the rankings and their results, but who is going to do it? That said, we should assume that Wikipedians can figure things out for themselves. So, the editor(s) that are erasing the Talk Page and erasing imperfect rankings (Hey! What ranking is perfect?!)-- especially when the publication states it methodology-- should stop and let Wikipedians decide for themselves. The one erasing the logical & useful separation of comprehensive and narrow rankings should stop and reconsider. This separation adds something just as useful as the (OMG) tagline!!
The one erasing the Talk Page, in particular, is due to explain why!! You really get my goat. Do you burn books as well? Stop it. Let people read the Talk Page. We need every opinion including the ones that are dumb (to you). Newcomers need to get a feeling for what is happening with the encyclopedia, so they need to read more not less. I cannot be arsed to check how other pages do it, but I am so sure non-profane Talk Page entries less than six months old are not erased. COYW 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
65.95.116.58>> Forbes' "Top Non-U.S. Two-Year Business Schools" does not show what you've written. Close, but different! Please change it soon. COYW 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
DTORGERSON>> I am glad that you have given the person at 65.95.116.58 the chance to revise one edit, but your edit deserves no such nicety. What's more, you may want to fill out the sections you've created before editing my work because it seems "advertisy" to you. COYW 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why a Tagline?
I placed the tagline on the page because the wiki markup for the template calls for it. For those that are criticizing that...get off your ass and do some homework...or if you're too lazy for that...just ask. Personally, I don't particularly care...I just figured that if it was defined in the template, it should be included if it was available...which it is. I understand that by using a template or a convention defined by someone else / another Wikipedian, I may in inadvertently be allowing 'the Man' to win. However, since I didn't think it made sense to define a completely new Wikipedia...and an entirely new programming language...and an entirely new template language...I'd take the chance.
COYW >> I have no idea what you are talking about or attempting to infer. I'm happy to discuss it (whatever 'it' is) here, privately, or whatever floats your boat.Dtorgerson 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not care about any %$#@! agline. Just because a template has it,... well,... I'm no slave to a template. just because new socks come with little hangers does not mean I have to use them. The tagline is potentially provocative and I wrote as much to another person. COYW 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The tagline is the school's tagline. It's not my tagline. I didn't make it up. If you don't like the tagline, your argument is with the institution, not me. I agree that it could be argued that it is "potentially provocative"...but taglines tend to be somewhat provocative. Taglines are supposed to stir the air a little.
You've made several comments/inquiries about the diversity of the school. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you disagree with the 'diverse' component of the tagline. And you may have a legitimate argument. But it's a different argument. All I ever did was put in the tagline as per the template. I realize that you are not a slave to a template but we can't all be as free and independent thinking as you. Some of us are simpletons that must follow convention at all costs. I, for one, welcome our dark template overlords.Dtorgerson 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The One
I am "The One" editor that disagreed with COYW's desire to stray from the convention established by the majority of other business school wiki pages. I provided her with ample, quantitative, verifiable evidence to rebut her opinion. She opted to attempt to use rhetorical devices rather than provide evidence to support his opinion. I stand by the evidence.
If you disagree with the evidence, provide evidence to the contrary that supports your argument. I am all for change if there is a sound reason behind the change. "Because," "I don't like it," and historically inaccurate analogies are generally not valid reasons.
For those that want to discuss this, or why I think a ranking should be verifiable by a third party before it is placed on the page, let's discuss.
Shall we now dispense with the grade school attempts at insults and insinuation?Dtorgerson 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to correct your own admitted mistake first, DTORGERSON. Is calling it "a rookie mistake" enough? Still, I am happy to join in discussion.
COYW, there was no mistake. Please read my response, which was posted well before your comment, and/or check the history of the page. Someone else made the changes to this page. Also, is there a reason you created two "The One" sections? Could you perhaps consolidate them? I would like to have all of your attacks and rants against me in one place.Dtorgerson 14:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"...[T]he convention established by the majority of other business school wiki pages." <--- What does this mean when the majority of universities do not even have a page. Let's talk context here! The majority of those schools that do, don't have separate pages for parts of the university. The simple fact is that MBA programmes normally do not have a page. This Schulich page is in the minority for sure. DTORGERSON doesn't see these as "conventions". If someone really did, then one might argue for erasing everything in order to join that majority. To me, that seems inane and I don't think anyone at all wants to regress. Yet DTORGERSON keeps harping on following some conventions (at least he does in between flouting other more long-standing, core principles of Wikipedia.).
COYW, you have s simple task: provide tangible evidence for your argument that refutes my argument. Do this and you will win the debate. You make many claims about "all schools" and "majorities" but you don't seem able to follow through with the 'work.' Let me save you time with your rebuttal: because I am an alumni and have stated it openly and transparently, I have an agenda against you...personally...; and because I don't agree with you I'm a book burning Nazi. So, with that out of the way, are you, or are you not, capable of providing any evidence to support your argument? Dtorgerson 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
His "ample, quantitative, verifiable evidence"? It amounted to about twelve schools doing things one way and and seven or eight doing it another. And so? So, what? If anyone of you cares to look at more than twenty schools, then these numbers flip flop! Again, what others do should not necessarily compel free-thinking editors. Naturally, other pages are useful templates and Wikipedia has established guidelines about entries. Still, nothing has been "decided" about the content we are now considering... simply because the specific discrimination in question has not been done before. There's nothing like it.
COYW, you don't understand what a wikipedia template is. It has nothing to do with other schools. I provided a link for you to check it out. Here's another one. Find out what they are, AND THEN make a case for/against them. BTW, you'll notice the inclusion of a "tag line" in the definition of the template. This is all stated in the tag line section posted earlier.Dtorgerson 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't even care about the details of a Wikipedia template. My comments spoke to advertising. I don't care about the flurshinger tagline now. COYW 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, then since I only followed the template and filled in information for the template defintion, your issue is not with me but with the group that defined the template. BTW, it's not my tagline. Dtorgerson 17:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So, with much feeling, I am asking someone to explain what part of distinguishing different kinds of rankings is wrong (Tut tut, DTORGERSON! Not so fast! Yes, the onus is on you to explain, certainly before editing, but no-fair referencing other schools like they are the be-all-and-end-all.). By the way, do you see the majority of those top twenty schools with taglines? You cannot have it both ways.
Actually, I don't much care about your tagline. You wrote that my edit seems "advertisy", so all I wanted to do was throw your term back at you. You still don't catch my drift. And I don't care enough to get into a revert duel with an alumnus who has stated an agenda.
Again, yes, I am an alumnus. I have stated so to you and to everyone to keep things open and honest. I think that because I am an alumnus editing the school page, my edits should undergo greater scrutiny than someone with no affiliation to the school. I do not hold any one else to this standard although I do hope that if there are other alumni editing the page that they would have the courage to undergo the same scrutiny. Transparency is a good thing. That is my "agenda." Again.Dtorgerson 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see the tag line section, as stated earlier. After that, please learn what a wikipedia template is.
For now, please stick to arguing for your all-in-one rankings section-- and ensure that your argument reflects consensus on this page.
Eagerly awaiting your reply... COYW 03:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I see that "conversation" with you is too difficult. Let's get mediation. COYW 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sticking to one issue at a time sounds like an excellent idea. Let's debate the rankings in the rankings section.Dtorgerson 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk page censure
I may have inadvertently erased some of the Schulich talk page at one point. If I did, I really apologize. Please understand that it was not intended to remove information that I personally did not agree with. It was simply a rookie mistake and will not happen again.
However, I do appreciate the melodrama of the book burning comments and look forward to comparisons between myself, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Like me, they too started out by accidentally erasing a social networking website page. It's a well known fact that erasing some content on a public website is a gateway activity that leads to the mass torture of people and ultimately genocide.
If anyone wants to hold an actual discussion with me about this or anything else, based somewhat in reality...please hit me on my talk page.Dtorgerson 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"I MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY ERASED"... Just undo some edits and the fuss is over with. COYW 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In looking at the history of the talk page, I DID NOT make any erasure changes. I guess a quick check on the history page before apologizing would have saved me from making an ass of myself. It's amazing how a little research can save a lot of time. Valuable lesson.Dtorgerson 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nth in Canada
Should the page call out the school's rankings relative to Canada? It is a clarification that is always made by the school. Shouldn't the school simply be ranked relative to "all" the other schools in it's class? And by "class" I mean in a taxonomic sense (e.g., business schools).
I personally don't like it because it sounds typically Canadian..."we might not be first in the US but we're first north of Lake Ontario"
I figure the school should simply stand its own but I do have a bias so...thoughts?Dtorgerson 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"Should the page call out the school's rankings relative to Canada?" <--Is DTORGERSON's question, but note that he keeps editing out headers for an "MBA Programme Rankings" and a "Other Rankings" section. These headers would serve to sort out the growing list of publications that choose to rank schools. COYW 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
COYW, you are probably very busy and didn't get a chance to read my position on your statement before typing. It's in the ranking section. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.Dtorgerson 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES, I have read it. Of course. "...[Y]ou are probably very busy"... Oh! Give me a break! A university ought to be ranked, if it must be ranked, against all other schools. Let's put all the fish in one big pond. This was done under an apples-vs-apples ranking header called "MBA Programme Rankings". BTW, you edited it out.
Still, people want to know what programme is best in Canada or is the greenest or produces the best HR people. Whatever. This is what the "Other Rankings" section was for. BTW, you edited out the "Other Rankings" section, too. Please revert the page to the way it was organised before.
I think that your suggestion of getting third party mediation is an excellent one. Let's do that.Dtorgerson 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, let's separate the rankings and not people. Just because a publication gears its article to its own readership (and why wouldn't it?!) does not necessarily mean that its rankings are either comprehensive or specialised or not useful for anyone. Geez! People can handle different sources, so it should not matter whether a publication has South American, North American or Indian readers. Let's look at the rankings independently. COYW 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rankings
COYW and I have had a lively exchange about the rankings on our respective talk pages. To get the discussion into the open, I've copied his comments from the general discussion above to here.
From COYW >> "I note that about 60% or so of the top-twenty MBA schools have "Rankings" as a separate header, but if you check out ALL the schools around Schulich's rank and beyond, this percentage goes down precipitously. So, should we have this section at all? I say yes, but we should also help the users along to make sense of these numbers."
The general trend is to have a section for rankings, so I agree with you. However, given that the standard bearer schools generally (60% - glad you were able to utilize my research) use the title "Rankings," I feel that the section should follow the "leaders." While I have not done comprehensive research to make a claim such as "check out ALL the schools around Schulich's rank and beyond," I do not believe it makes sense to follow the convention (or lack of convention) set forth by lesser institutions. Yes, that is a subjectively loaded statement, but given the debate - rankings - I think in the absence of a convention, we should use the convention set forth by the leaders. Other than a warm fuzzy feeling, what good comes from comparing yourselves to your lesser peers? I realize that the Toronto Maple Leafs were the second best team in Ontario last year, but who cares? Okay, that was a low blow, but why not actively compare to schools that are better than rather than "around Schulich's rank and beyond?" What is the benefit?
I appreciate your desire to help users "make sense of these numbers." However, given that each ranking within the section has a clear citation (or should), don't you believe that most users are intelligent enough to comprehend the taxonomy of the term "Rankings." Further, given the bias in each ranking (e.g., some rankings are biased toward a special issue such as sustainability or a particular demographic such as Indians), the section should have a general title so that users can make their own sense rather than having us, the wise, all knowing editors, "make sense" for them. It could just be me, but I prefer to think of the users as intelligent people who can figure things out without some elitist telling them.Dtorgerson 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to programme rankings of apples versus rankings of oranges, DTORGERSON sees fit to lecture me about condescending to other Wikipedians. Excuse me?? "Making sense" of the information means organising it, and it is no different than you separating that list of alumni from your list of teachers. I am adding something new here, without precedent, and you are editing it away without giving people time to see it. Give separate headers a chance to catch on, please. COYW 05:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With that out of the way, let's get onto his rhetoric. "Making sense" does not mean "organizing it" They are completely separate concepts. Did you perhaps mean that how data are organized may affect how some people may make sense of the data?Dtorgerson 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me try another approach. Since the "rankings" section that is the convention at other schools - where such a convention exists - is unacceptable to you, can you provide the criteria for how it should be made less general?Dtorgerson 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
My name has four letters and you get 75% of it right most of the time. That seems like the right number for you, DTORGERSON. Let's get mediation, shall we, because this is NOT discussion. COYW 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
However you wish to settle this is fine with me. Can you suggest an objective third party for us to use? My apologies on the name, COYW. It was a typo on my part.Dtorgerson 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note: I moved the discussion about alumni and faculty to it's own heading to keep the issues somewhat separate. Here's a link to the section.
[edit] Format of Rankings
This is a discussion about the content of the section.
What are your thoughts about changing the rankings section to a grid presentation? A few other schools such as Kellogg use the format in their Rankings section. I think the grid does two things well: it conveys the ranking and it conveys an unbiased presentation of the history of the rankings. Bias might be construed in a statement such as "down 31 spots from previous ranking" or "up 31 spots from previous ranking," whereas a simple presentation of numbers allows the reader to draw a conclusion. It also affords easier maintenance. Thoughts?Dtorgerson 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the table copied from Kellogg
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | |
| BusinessWeek (MBA) | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| BusinessWeek (EMBA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Economist (MBA) | 6 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Financial Times (MBA) | 19 | 17 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 11 | 8 | |||||
| Financial Times (EMBA*) | 8 | 2 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||
| Forbes (MBA) | 10 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||||||||
| US News (MBA) | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| US News (EMBA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| US News (Part-time) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||
| WSJ (MBA) | 12 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
Thoughts???Dtorgerson 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of the School
Most business schools do not have a criticism section. It makes sense for several reasons...a couple follow. Institutions tend to not want to have their dirty laundry aired in public: keep it in the family. Another reason is that criticism often trends toward whining, which doesn't help anyone. In our discussions, COYW raised some fairly valid criticisms of the school.
I'm of two minds. Healthy organizations have valid internal mechanisms for dealing with criticisms and should be given a chance to "right the ship" and some decisions by the school leave me concerned for its health.
Should the school have a "criticism" section and, if so, how do we ensure the criticisms are fair and not of the whining variety? How do we ensure that a criticism is valid? As criticism is usually quite subjective, I'm not sure it's possible.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an alumnus.Dtorgerson 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
DTORGERSON is an alumnus with an agenda. Should I copy-and-paste it here? COYW 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As I stated I am an alumnus, have always done so, and will continue to do so...copy-and-paste away. Open and full disclosure only adds to the discussion. I am interested to hear what you believe my agenda is.Dtorgerson 13:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notable Alumni and Faculty
DTORGERSON sees fit to have a section for "famous professors" and another for "notable alumni". Nobody is carrying on about "wise, all-knowing editors making sense" for readers of all these Famous People Associated With Schulich. Aesthetically, I felt that a list should have more than just two people, but I waited, and you came through. That was my constructive criticism, but I was not so constructive to actually go & find more names to flush out the headers. You did, DTORGERSON. You organised the alumni list from the teachers', right? I bet readers appreciate this formatting.
No, I did not organize the "alumni list from the teachers." I'm not even sure what that means. I simply followed the convention of other wiki pages and added some notable alumni from Schulich. I am not aware of many notable alumni. I only added a few and others have since added more. If anyone feels that the alumni mentioned are not notable, make a case for/against them.Dtorgerson 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Dtorgerson 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is hard to read because of the arguing. Wikipedia already has rules for the TalkPage.
Agreed. I apologize for making it difficult to read. I thought a 'public' forum for the discussion was warranted. As the arguing is between myself and COYW, I can move most of it to my TalkPage if that's alright with everyone.Dtorgerson 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gareth Morgan
Professor Gareth Morgan PhD, is an internationally renowned author on organizational behavior and management. He is currently the director of PhD program at the Schulich School of Business, York University where he has taught since 1981 after he earned his PhD from the University of Lancaster. Professor Morgan earned his Bachelor of Science in Economics from the University of London and his Master's degree in Public Administration from the University of Texas at Austin.
