Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wessex Institute of Technology article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] NPOV

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Please re-read my above comment, paragraph 3, line 3. Thank you. --Curuxz 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
You're right. My bad. I do apologise. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the Controversy section:

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: [1] --Hrrr 13:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
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?

[edit] Reinsertion of controversy

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)


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)
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)

Well, user John254 concurs with Curuxz about the "Controvery" material, which is fair enough. See [2] and [3]. 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: [4] . 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)

[edit] Reinsertion of controversy II

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[edit] Older comments

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)

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)

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))

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

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

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)

[edit] University of Wales attribution

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.[5] 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)

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)
Well done, the new category seems more appropriate. --Curuxz 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)