Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I read this and think it's a well written article on an interesting place, and should be featured. Just as a note, I am not (except for my field of study) affiliated with MIT in any way. Zaha 21:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment Given the problems we have with academic boosterism in Wikipedia, I think that it is probably not a good idea to feature an article about any college, as it will undoubtedly be construed as support for the institution and not merely for the article. If one college is featured, I fear that will evoke a competitive spirit among supporters of other institutions. And not in a way that will improve the articles.
Lets make it clear that topic is not a reason to not feature an article. You have pointed out POV problems with it, and that of course is a valid reason to not feature an article. Any article that meets all of the featured article criteria can become a FA. Some may then be marked so as not to appear on the Main page, but that is an entirely separate issue. I have never looked into the details of the mechanism for that though. - Taxman 14:06, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. For the record, I personally think the MIT article is adequately NPOV at the moment—but only adequately. That is, it doesn't have a POV problem, it's just not a shining example of Wikipedian neutrality. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have not yet seen any college or university article that I think truly exemplifies "Wikipedia's best work." To my way of thinking all of them have at least borderline NPOV problems. I liked the MIT article better when it contained a discussion of MIT's suicide rate. It wasn't a very good discussion, but at least the issue was mentioned. The current article does not contain the word "suicide" and is generally light on anything that might be construed as negative or critical.
All of the college articles I've looked at have this problem, not just MIT. In the Dartmouth article, for example, at one point someone tried to insert "allegedly" into the sentence noting that the film Animal House was based on Dartmouth College. The Dartmouth grad from whose stories the screenplays were adapted, and the film's director have both stated that it was based on Dartmouth. There's no "allegedly" about it. It's just that the film doesn't portray "Faber" College in a flattering way.
Since I bleed cardinal and gray, and know that the Institute Has The Finest Professors, I won't vote—but I trust I've made my feelings clear. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Broadly the same views as Dpbsmith. I am not in any way affiliated with MIT. --JuntungWu 01:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's odd. User:MITalum doesn't have a user page, didn't file an email contact, and doesn't seem to respond to queries on his talk page. Perhaps he'll comment there. He seems to have uploaded the images and carefully entered copyright notices complete with circle-C symbols such as "Photograph taken by Jackson Frakes. Copyright © 2002 by Jackson Frakes." Some of them are fine, others (such as the photo of the Eastman plaque) are perfectly illustrative but don't look as if they were taken by a professional. It seems possible that MITalum, Jackson Frakes, and a recent Course XIV grad with the surname Frakes but a different first name might all be the same person, but it's curious that he hasn't cleared this up. Like many people, he may have thought that since clicking the button APPEARS to implicitly acknowledge release under GFDL that there wasn't a need to say this explicitly. I'm going to try to contact him via email. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Update: User:MITalum responded on my talk page to confirm that he is Jackson Frakes, and all of his photos are thus GFDL. His only remaining problematic images are Image:MIT-brassrat.jpg and Image:MIT-stata.jpg, the latter of which is currently not used in any article. —Steven G. Johnson 22:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Good. (The recently graduated non-Jackson Frakes has responded to my email saying "sorry. I've never heard of Jackson Frakes or 'mitalum.' wish I could be of more help."). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object ; 1) many opinions are quoted without any source "There is a refreshing lack of so-called "weed out" classes" (one at random) 2) many unclearly attributed phrases "perfect fit in many peoples' eyes" 3) "also consistently ranks among the highest in nationwide reports" please list them
    • Comment By all means list them, but, please, on the Talk page, or in References, not inline in the main article. One of the ways in which these articles get out of balance occurs when someone puts in some appropriate value statement that is in fact generally recognized as true... such as (say) "Harvard is one of the leading universities in the United States." Someone else says, in effect, "prove it," and the next thing you know the article leads off with three of four long paragraphs about U. S. News rankings and numbers of Nobel prize winners and selectivity, etc. etc. There are many cases where the general reader needs to know something that is a partly-subjective-but-widely-agreed-on value judgement. In such cases, the appropriate thing to do is to put the simple statement in the article and the buttressing remarks in a footnote or on the Talk page or somewhere. When the reader sees something like "MIT is a leader in science," this is an important fact about MIT and it deserves to be there. The reader needs to know that the statement is verifiable and not just the opinion of the contributor. And the reader needs to be given the means to verify it and the ability to judge the credibility of verifying references ("U.S. News and World report? Bull! That's just college presidents stroking each other..."). But the supporting references belong somewhere where they do not interrupt the flow of the article. We now return you to Mozzerati's comment... Dpbsmith (talk) 21:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
footnotes with links to correct studies would be appropriate in this case; talk page should be for more or less active discussion (IMHO/IMnsHO??) Mozzerati 22:51, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
4) general non specificity "For some years past" 5) almost nothing negative is said about MIT. MIT has been implicated in cooperation with Microsoft which has been found to have been involved in illegal market monopolism[1]. 6) there is no mention of ethics investigations; almost any large scientific instituation has gone through such. What were the most important ones where the scientist was found to have committed fraud? Who was let off? Why? Have there been any serious claims of whitewashing?. 7) As a large American institution, there must have been some interaction with race. What level of discrimination was practiced and when? Was there any segregation on campus? 8) there is no mention of control of intellectual property by the institute and, for example, why Stallman had to resign his post in order to continue the GNU project. Some other comments (not objections yet until I find specific examples) C1) language is a bit gushing in places; more neutral language would help. Lack of boredom is more important to me though. C2) this is very close to 32k, by the time my other comments are incorporated, I will probably object that the article is too long and should be split. Mozzerati 19:18, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)