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)
[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. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
