Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/University of Phoenix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Summary of Arguments 2.1 N6 2.2 Cascadia 2.3 Rdenke 3 Where to now? 3.1 Section Break 3.2 UoPsucks.com as a review site 3.3 stale-mate? 4 Outside View 5 Abandoned?

[edit] Welcome

First of all, I thank the three of you for agreeing to mediation and for agreeing to my being your mediator. This already shows a level of cooperation that will help us get through this process and come up with a posititve solution to the agreement of all. I see lots of positive discussion so far, and I think we can come to a good solution with this. Just to help simplify things, I would like to do two things. I want to make sure I understand everything correctly, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am seeing the disagreement over whether or not the link to UOPSucks.com should be included, as there is disagreement on its relevancy. The second thing I ask is for each of you to summarize, in 100 words or less, why you think it should or should not be included. I believe that WP:EL and WP:NOR both have prevalance here, especially the former. So, if we could get going, that'd be great. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd add, Rdenke asked me what University I attend, I'm assuming to make sure there's no bias. I am currently enrolled at VCU, and have no feelings about the University of Phoenix one way or the other. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of us dispute the relevancy of the link. The dispute is over its appropriateness. N6 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For Rdenke's benefit, I hold an undergraduate degree from Caltech and attended classes for a year at the University of Minnesota while in high school. I am not now nor have I ever been affiliated with the University of Phoenix or with any other online or distance educator. N6 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Arguments

Below, in 100 words or less, please summarize your argument for the inclusion (or not) of the link to UOPSucks.com.

[edit] N6

Per WP:EL:

• The site prominently features a blog and a forum.
• The site's other content is mostly unverifiable original research based on unsourced "internal memos".

As a more common-sense argument, it's a sloppily-constructed attack site with an inflammatory name that makes no attempt to hide its obvious biases.

In the end, I agree that uopsucks.com provides potentially valuable information (to the extent that its unnamed sources can be trusted), but it is not an appropriate resource to link on Wikipedia.

N6 16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cascadia

Per WP:EL:

• Sites should be added that contain “…Neutral and accurate material…”.

uopsucks.com clearly does not contain neutral material.

• Sites to be avoided are those that contain: “…unverifiable research…”, “…discussion forums…”, and are “…blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.”

The reviews on the site cannot be verified and contain original research, besides being a self-published webpage, the blog and the discussion forum are the main parts of the site.

Links to such sites are not included on other articles about Universities, and one should not be here, to match other articles and be NPOV. Cascadia 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rdenke

-Per WP:EL #4, links to reviews sites are permitted/encouraged. The site should not be disallowed because it has a blog and forum. The site has plenty of content without these features. The blog is not a diary or journal, it is a collection of articles that could easily be done as standalone webpages. The forum is just a means for users to enter and discuss their reviews, it is not a social forum. The site is 100% relevant to UOP with no topic dilution or blatant promotion for competitors or spam content. The spirit of the prohibition in the policy is websites whose sole or primary purpose is blog or forum; which is not the case here.

-There is no research on the website, so WP:NOR does not apply. It belongs because it is a review site per WP:EL. Reviews are unique personal experiences. Reviews are not research and by nature can't be verified. As a public review site, the reviews are as valid as reviews posted by the public anywhere else for any other topic. WP:EL allows review sites. Reviews, by nature, are NOT NEUTRAL - the neutral requirement does and can not apply to review sites because no review sites would ever qualify.

-The internal memos have the name and contact information for the authors, thus they are easily verifiable.

-There is a link to UOP's website which provides positive information about UOP. A link to UOPSucks.com would provide additional information counter or supplemental to UOP's information, thus establishing and maintaining a NPOV for the article.

-The construction of the website and name of the website are irrelevant; the content is what matters. It is not an attack site. The motto is: "Get the facts before you enroll," not "down with UOP!"

-The average user of this article would prefer to have the link provided rather than not provided. Let the users decide whether or not this is a source they want to use rather than us deciding for them. This is just a link to an informative and relevant site, it is not content or a form of endorsement. --Rdenke 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to now?

First of all, let me apologize for taking several days to get back to you. Been busy with work and whatnot. In any case, I have read all of your arguments, and you all make valid points. I do see a possibility for compromise to the satisfaction to everyone involved. It is merely my role facilitate your discussion towards a solution, not to impose a solution on you. However, it is within my right to propose compromises, and I do have one that came to mind, and it is this:

Leaving the link to UOPSucks.Com, however placing a disclaimer after it such as (Disclaimer: Site contains information highly critical of the University of Phoenix).

Of course we don't have to do this, or any variant of this. Ideas? Suggestions? Your own compromise? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this resolves the dispute. From a policy standpoint, WP:EL makes no reference to otherwise-unacceptable links becoming acceptable with the addition of a disclaimer.

Further, if that disclaimer actually fit this case, I would have no problem including the link in the article. I do not take issue with including sites that may include highly critical information: Hypothetically, a notable site that presented highly critical information in accordance with WP:EL would be a strong candidate for inclusion in the links section and would require no disclaimer. In short, the site is objectionable for reasons entirely other than just being critical of the UoP.

Unfortunately, I've no alternative compromise to suggest at present. N6 13:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to reply to Rdenke's claim that the site does not contain unverifiable or original research: The non-blog, non-forum content on the site consists of a synthesis of various "internal memos". (Participants who are not already familiar with the whole contents of WP:NOR ought to read that article in its entirety before continuing.)

1. While the memos may include contact information, they do not include references to reputable published sources. For us to verify the authenticity of these memos directly, we would need to contact the people listed in them. Ignoring for a moment that in practice these people would categorically deny the memos' authenticity whether or not they actually are authentic, requiring us to privately contact anybody to verify anything is clearly out of sync with WP:V.
2. The site fails every single criterion under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Non-scholarly_sources, leaving us little reason to trust the writer or writers to be reliable in providing such a synthesis. I would even go one step further and say that uopsucks.com constitutes, for all intents and purposes, a personal website--not least of all because it is controlled, without oversight, by one or more admins presenting no verifiable credentials.

More generally, I don't follow how Rdenke's other reasoning is in line with policy.

1. Whether a link fits one of the criteria for inclusion in WP:EL is irrelevant if it clearly meets the criteria for non-inclusion as well.
2. Balancing positive links with critical links whether or not there are appropriate links available on both sides is absolutely not required by any policy. In accordance with WP:NPOV (and moderated by WP:UNDUE) balance is presumably preferred where there exist appropriate links on all sides, but nobody has presented an appropriate critical link! A link should not be included unless it is appropriate for inclusion, period.
3. There exists no policy that establishes The average user of this article would prefer to have the link provided rather than not provided as a criterion--sufficient or otherwise--for inclusion of an external link.

The only relevant counterargument presented so far by Rdenke is in attempting to establish that uopsucks.com is not inappropriate as an external link, and that is the argument I've attempted to rebut.

N6 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be agreeable to inclusion of the link with a disclaimer. I just want to see that the link is made available to users so they know of this additional information about UOP.

N6's entire response is based on UOPSucks.com being a site with significant research. It is NOT a research site! It is a review site, and thus most of his arguments are irrelevant as they apply only to research and do not apply to reviews. The only items of research that he cites is some internal memos posted on the site. These include the author's name, title, location, address, phone number, fax number, and email address. This is a sufficient citation of the source. One of the two memo's contents is even corroborated by a news article from the Arizona Republic. The level of verification N6 is asking for is akin to requiring a researcher's original research notes and instructions on how to duplicate the research. The source is the author of the memo and is sufficient.

I'm using the definition of "original research" in WP:NOR. You're using some completely separate definition. According to Wikipedia policy, a synthesis of established facts constitutes original research.

I'm using the definition of "verifiable" in WP:V. You're using some completely separate definition. The level of verifiability I am asking for is exactly the level of verifiability explicitly required by Wikipedia policy.

Reference to original research is certainly allowed on Wikipedia. Reference (and linking) to unverifiable original research by an unreliable source is not. The word "review" is not a magic blanket that excuses any opinion site from adhering to the rest of WP:EL. Further, the forum is obviously used for discussion (as can be borne out by even a cursory glance), and claims that it is simply a vehicle for posting reviews border on insulting.

--N6 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a policy to know that The average user of this article would prefer to have the link provided rather than not provided. Users are going to want to know about additional, relevant resources (including uopsucks.com) if they exist. WP:EL says that links to review sites should be provided. There is no harm in providing the link and letting users decide if they want to go there. I have already explained why WP:EL exclusion policy does apply to this review site. As such, there is no reason not to include this link. --Rdenke 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rdenke, your entire argument above is that you feel anyone doing research on the University would want to see the site. This is an assumption on the part of wikipedia users. Furthermore, a user could easily find it via a Google search. I would not compromise with having the link added, even with a disclaimer. As N6 clearly pointed out, it meets far too many criteria for NOT being included. Just because it meets only a few criteria for being included does not mean the others should be ignored.

Rdenke says there is "No Harm" in providing the link to let "the users decide". The site owner has clearly stated his agenda is to show the "dark side" of the University. I believe the links to verifiable sources in the Controversy Section should provide enough insight into the University's controversies that a link to UOPsucks.com is not needed. One should be able decide whether to attend the University or not after reading about lawsuits from the USDOE and USDOL.

This article is not about trying to promote the University or encouraging anyone to attend. It is simply about the University as an establishment. The Policies of Wikipedia make it very clear that this site is not to be added. To ignore WP:EL and WP:NPOV here will set a precedence for all of Wikipedia.

Finally, I would like to point out that, per responses to the RfC on the talk page, a consensus for the site not being included has been shown by those who commented. So, again, no compromising on adding the link with a disclaimer, per WP:EL, WP:NPOV, Consensus, WP:V, WP:NOR. Cascadia 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've judiciously avoided debating the merits of claims such as There is no harm in providing the link and The average user of this article would prefer to have the link provided rather than not provided because there is no policy that suggests these are valid criteria for a link's inclusion. I feel no need to address them beyond pointing out that they are irrelevant. N6 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia, my argument is NOT that everyone would want to see the site. My argument is that anyone would want to know the site exists so that THEY can decide whether or not to visit it, please do not twist my words. Users would rather know about the site and NOT visit it, than to not know about the site at all. True, any site can be found by a Google search, but it is one thing to be presented with a list of relevant links, it is quite another for someone to be inspired to search for a site that they do not about. I have found many websites from link lists that I would have never thought to search for. I think Wikipedia users deserve to be presented with this link rather than have it hidden from them. Why don't Wikipedia users deserve to know about this site? Where is the harm in providing this link?

The controversy section does not adequately discuss all of the problems with this company. UOPSucks.com has found several more points of controversy. Just because they haven't been sued for these reasons doesn't mean the problems aren't there and aren't important. I don't know where you saw the comment, but I would agree that UOPSucks.com does show the dark side of UOP. It shows everything that UOP doesn't show on their own website. This is important for presenting NPOV: Phoenix.edu - bright side, UOPSucks.com - dark side. Both together = Neutral.

I understand that the article isn't about encouraging people to attend, I never said it was. To allow this link would be enforcing WP:EL and NPOV, not ignoring it. N6 and Cascadia's reasoning is based on deeming UOPSucks.com a research site instead of a review site. I don't see why you two are so reluctant to accepting the review site designation other than the fact that it invalidates almost all of your arguments.

The concensus on the talk page that you refer to is irrelevant here. The mediator obviously sees significant merit in my arguments to suggest that the link remain. The users on the talk page have not applied Wikipedia policies properly to their arguments, and I have successfully refuted each one.

Mediator: I don't see that we are going to come to an agreement on this. These two are dead set against providing the link. What next? --Rdenke 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section does not adequately discuss all of the problems with this company.

Then edit the controversy section so that it does. Please do so with reference to sources that comply with WP:V, which you should probably read at some point.

The concensus on the talk page that you refer to is irrelevant here.

Yes, it is going to be pretty difficult to mediate if you think consensus is as irrelevant. You have not pierced some veil of stupidity that myself nor Cascadia nor any of the commenters in the RfC can see through. You are misinterpreting and rewriting policy to reach whatever conclusion suits you. You have latched onto the word "review" as if not another single jot of WP policy could possibly be relevant, and even if every other jot was irrelevant, uopsucks.com is not merely a review site.

--N6 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

rdenke, if you wish to take the verifiable sources linked from uopsucks.com, and write additions to the controversy section referencing those sources (newspaper articles, etc.), I would very much encourage you to do so, as long as they are relevant and verifiable. I am the first to admit the University is not without controversy, and I personally have a few arguments with their actions of my own. Adding verifiable controversy is fine.

I personally have explained, re-explained, and further explained the issue we have with the link being added. To further explain it would be to beat a dead horse.

My offer for compromise at this point: The link to the site is NOT added, and Rdenke should add any relevant, verifiable controversy to the controversy section that links to verifiable sources and not uopsucks.com. Anyone agree to this? -- Cascadia 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break

I have read back over all of your arguments, and I feel that obviously both sides feel very strongly about this. I also see the previous discussion on the talkpage, and I tend to agree that consensus was reached.

1. Rdenke, the thing with a general consensus does not mean that 100% of people involved agree to something, nor that everyone necessarily has perfect arguments. It just means that a majority of people involved tend to agree, under correct reasoning or not. So it is suffice to say that if people have reached a consensus, it doesn't really matter that you've refuted their arguments, or continue to disagree, because the majority disagrees, justified or not. This isn't to say your opinion doesn't matter, nor that you're necessarily wrong, it just shows that you disagree with the majority, and on Wikipedia (to it's benefit or not is a constant debate) that is what rules.
2. N6, you bring up an interesting point about referring to something that applies to one section of policy, as opposed to wider policy. I do ask that you please provide some discussion on the point that Rdenke brings up, that UOPSucks is a review site, and not a research site. In looking into the site, he is correct that it tends to review, and not research (but I could be wrong). Thoughts on that angle? Although, I do see where you're coming from with the assertion that the site contains a blog and forum, both of which are discouraged by WP:EL.
3. Cascadia, I think that is a very good suggestion at a compromise. Of course we always want to keep a NPOV in articles, and expanding the criticism section would be a great way to capture the idea that UOPSucks gets across, if not the actual content. If the sources cited can meet WP:V and WP:RS, then UOPSucks could potentially extend the criticism section greatly, as it exists to criticize the University of Phoenix.
4. Everyone, I thank you for continuing to pursue this mediation in good faith, and I think we'll get a good resolution eventually, with calm and patient discussion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia, your comment about my alleged stupidity is not appropriate here. Laws and policies can have several interpretations, and such debates have been the subject of court battles since the beginning of time. I do not think it is right to dismiss one person's viewpoint simply because one does not agree with it. I am going to continue to assume good faith as I'm supposed to do with your arguments, and I would like to compliment the mediator on remaining open minded and unbiased.

Demon, Cascadia, I think my comments about the concensus were misunderstood and miscommunicated. While I agree that a concensus can be relevant, I would say in this case that a handful of replies does not make a reliable concensus... there were only 4 people who commented other than N6 and Cascadia. This is hardly a significant number when for any issue, the number of supporters versus the number of opponents is not necessarily even and each side varies in its level of enthusiam, support, and vocal-ness and in this case, how many of each side saw and read the discussion. Just because one side is outnumbered or more outspoken doesn't mean their view is any more valid.

Cascadia, you have missed the point completely. *I* do not have additional content for the Controversy section that would be appropriate, and I have never claimed that UOPSucks.com had content that would be appropriate to be addressed in that section either. As you know, reviews are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article; however, per WP:EL review sites can be referenced in the External Links section, and that is where a link to UOPSucks.com should be. Also, just because an issue ISN'T in the Controversy section and doesn't have verifiable research to back it up, doesn't mean it isn't a real or valid issue.

I want to touch on the blog and forum statement as I've done more looking around that site. The blog on that site is not a traditional blog. The author could have just as easily created individual webpages for his articles, but he didn't. There are no user comments or user interaction as seen in a traditional blog, and there is no real personal content or chronological order or diary content to the blog articles. I know he calls it a blog, but IMO it really isn't. The use of blog software does not make it a blog, just as the use of a paper clip to pick a lock does not make the paperclip a lock pick. As far as the forum, you have to read what the intent of the policy is to understand it's applicability to this situation. I have seen a lot of review sites on the Internet and almost all of them are forum-like. Some allow a subsequent discussion of the review (suck as UOPSucks.com) and others allow users to make posts, but there is no way to discuss or get more information about a particular review. The forum policy is clearly aimed at social forums, not review sites where users can reply and discuss reviews. UOPSucks.com is a review site where a forum is merely the vehicle for users to enter their reviews. The forum on UOPSucks.com is also NOT the entire purpose or content of the site. That is, the site was not created to be a user forum, the user forum is just a feature of the site.

Again, I see that this is not resolvable as it is clear that these two will not agree to having the link on the page period, and I will not agree to not having the link. The only thing I am flexible on is how and where the link is presented. --Rdenke 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rdenke, I have never alleged anyone of stupidity. Please take time to review the comments before making such statements.

Rdenke, furthermore, as I stated before... N6 and myself have repeatedly, in different ways explained why the site should not be added, and have cited multiple wikipedia policies and the consensus of users as proof of this. All that you have been able to bring to the table is how to define the site, what should be ignored as far as the content of the site, and how to interpret the site. Rdenke, what you are trying to debate here is your interpretation of what is a 'Real Blog' or a 'real forum'. The interpretation of the site is not what is at stake here, it is what the site is, and how it relates to Wikipedia Policies.

And, again, below, N6 does a fine job of pointing out, clear as day, why the site should NOT be listed. Cascadia 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UoPsucks.com as a review site

The claim that uopsucks is merely a review site is bogus.

• Reviews only exist in the forum. The forum is also used for other purposes including general discussion and enlisting site users to participate in edit wars on Wikipedia.
• Positive reviews are discouraged and deliberately minimized. There is a single forum ostensibly dedicated to "good things about UOP", but it is typically used instead to make sarcastic remarks. There are seven forums dedicated to complaints. If this site's primary purpose was to provide unfiltered reviews without prejudice to content--and this seems to me to be the purpose of the "review" clause in WP:EL--then it is a spectacular failure.
• Outside of the forum, there is quite a bit of content that could not possibly be called reviews. All of these pages make factual claims: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. There is a lot of content here that falls under the WP:NOR definition of research, and apart from the "in the news" page 100% of the references are unverifiable by the lights of WP:V.

--N6 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

N6, thank for you taking the effort to provide what I consider to be the first somewhat legitimate arguments that have been made from your side. Let me make a few clarifications here:

Reviews by the general public only exist in the forum. The rest of the site features reviews posted by the authors of the site.

I did not see where positive reviews were discouraged or minimized. The forum for good things about UOP had very few posts compared to the rest of the site. If it had more posts I could see that it may need more categories, but it clearly doesn't. As seen with any issue or topic, people are more inclined to complain about something than to give praise. When was the last time you told someone how well your TV works? But if it quit after 2 months after warranty expiration, how many people would hear about it? I do not see that positive posts are discouraged, anyone can post in that forum, and I don't see how they are minimized. As with any public forum, you can only do so much to control the content, so the presence of sarcasm should not be surprising nor a reason to discount the forum's value. You might as well complain about spam posts as well, as any public forum usually suffers from those as well. It sounds as if you are suggesting the administrators should edit and delete and strictly control its user's posts, which is a frightening concept. You either welcome public input and take it as-is or you don't do it at all. Clearly the value is in uncensored content.

The allegation of prejudice in the reviews is ludicrous. Prejudice means to pre-judge something. Most of the posters (if not all) are current and former faculty and students. I highly doubt they negatively pre-judged the experience that they would have at UOP. My guess is that they worked or enrolled expecting to have a GOOD experience, and are now posting about their ACTUAL experiences. Prejudice and bias? I think that argument only stands if these people are making comments without personal experience with UOP, and I don't think that is the case from what I have seen.

Again, N6, you try to apply policies for content published on Wikipedia to content published on the third party websites. Wikipedia policies and standards do not DIRECTLY apply to third party websites in the External Links section. In fact, the policies you state all start with the line, "Wikipedia articles..." It does not say "Wikipedia article and third party sites..." WP:EL says that the sites must be "accurate and on-topic" which is the case for UOPSucks.com (let me remind everyone that no one has yet to cite any specific information on UOPSucks.com that is not accurate). The only line in WP:EL that applies to research is this: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." UOPsucks.com does not mislead the user through factually inaccurate material (again, please cite the material if you see some). UOPSucks.com does not mislead the user through unverifiable research. For arguments sake, let's say there is unverifiable research on UOPsucks.com. My argument here is that it's not misleading. If anyone thinks it is, please cite specific examples of misleading unverifiable research. If you can generate some of these examples, I will strongly consider dropping my case.

--Rdenke 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

N6, thank for you taking the effort to provide what I consider to be the first somewhat legitimate arguments that have been made from your side. -- Your condescension is noted and entirely unappreciated.

As seen with any issue or topic, people are more inclined to complain about something than to give praise. -- People also may be disinclined to present positive reviews about <Topic> to an overwhelmingly hostile audience on a site called "<Topic> Sucks". It's possible that a site neutrally soliciting reviews of any opinion from anybody wishing to present them would turn up a large majority of negative reviews, but this site has made absolutely no attempt to do so.

The allegation of prejudice in the reviews is ludicrous. -- I didn't say the individual reviews were prejudiced. The implication was that the site as a whole cultivates a prejudice for negativity.

Wikipedia policies and standards do not DIRECTLY apply to third party websites in the External Links section. -- WP:EL certainly does. I won't bother making the same arguments based on that policy that I've made numerous times already.

Your claims of accuracy are spurious, because the site does not present verifiable sources for most of its claims. It is not my responsibility to prove inaccuracy, especially given the site's failure to satisfy any portion of WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources.

--N6 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. WP:EL is the only policy that applies here, but again, you try to apply WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources and other policies like WP:NOR and WP:V to a third party website referenced through an external link. These policies are the ones that do not apply, yet you insist on applying them.

WP:EL:

1. Explicitly references WP:RS (see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 2)
2. Uses the phrase "unverifiable research", which implicitly references WP:V and WP:NOR. I've not claimed this site must abide by WP:NOR to qualify for linking; I'm merely using that policy as a reference for the appropriate definition of "research", and WP:V for the appropriate definition of "unverifiable".

I will save you the work of finding inaccuracies on the website. There are none. Cascadia works there, maybe he can identify some inaccuracies a little easier. From his posts he's spent quite a bit of time there, so I keep waiting for his observations. I have browsed the external links for many topics and have found information from "non-scholarly sources," so this certainly wouldn't be the first.

It's like you're taking text that I've written and picked out random words to mock me with. Please point out where I implied that non-scholarly sources are forbidden. Please do. WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources is simply a set of criteria for judging the reliability of non-scholarly sources.

You may try browsing several musician articles here in Wikipedia. It is very common to see links to fan websites and myspace pages. Many of these fan clubs contain user forums and and blog and nothing but biased information about the performer or band. UOPSucks.com is the EXACT SAME THING except it reveals unflattering information about its subject. The content on those websites is just as "spurious" and unreliable as you claim UOPSucks.com to be. --Rdenke 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've taken a word I said completely out of context. At what point did I call the content of any website spurious? Please point that out for me.

What is spurious is your assertion that the information on uopsucks.com is accurate. With respect to WP:V and WP:RS, you have no grounds to make this claim: the site does not provide verifiable sources for most of its factual claims nor any substantive evidence of its own reliability.

As for fansites and myspace:

1. It's entirely possible there are other articles with inappropriate links. I'm not arguing about the merits of those links, just this one.
2. If you won't acknowledge that there is a difference with respect to WP:EL between uopsucks.com and, say, an official band website hosted on myspace, I frankly have no interest in discussing this with you any further. (Note: Such a myspace site might also be inappropriate, but for vastly different reasons.)

--N6 08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have focused a lot of my arguments on definition. Definition is critical when applying policies. Almost all laws include a “definition” section in order to avoid misinterpretation and misapplication of the law. Definition is critical, because many of the arguments made here by all parties have played on loose or general definitions of some very important terms. As an example, using blog software to post website content does not in itself constitute a true blog.

This discussion is getting fragmented and confusing. My arguments have evolved, and I will summarize my arguments for clarity since I get the impression that my arguments are becoming both muddied and overly simplified.

1. WP:EL allows review sites. UOPSucks.com is awash in user reviews and consumer information and the primary purpose of the site is for visitors to read and learn about the actual experiences of current and former students and faculty.

2. WP:EL only loosely qualifies what third party sites should be and should not be linked. These policies must be interpreted practically. For instance, you cannot apply research requirements to reviews and interviews. Furthermore, there are many websites where not all material may be properly cited or where the sources may not qualify as verifiable; however the information may still be valid and useful so long as it isn’t factually inaccurate or misleading. The links are still OK.

3. Very early in our discussion, I believe Cascadia mentioned setting precedence. Plenty of precedence already exists in the external links sections of other Wikipedia articles. I’m referring mostly to many of the music-related and movie star Wikipedia articles where external links to fan clubs and myspace pages are shown. These are fan club websites riddled with blogs, forums, rumors, and other content that are typically heavily biased in favor of the subject. These links have been placed, seen, and used by hundreds and thousands of Wikipedia users, editors, mediators, etc. without removal. The questions in my mind are:

a. Are the links allowed simply because these sites are complimentary of the subject? (I’m sure it doesn’t hurt)

b. Are the Wikipedia editors and contributors oblivious to the WP:EL policy in allowing these links to remain? (I doubt it.)

c. If I give a list of these articles to N6 and Cascadia, will they vehemently pursue the removal of these links in the spirit of their noble cause to keep Wikipedia pure as they are trying to do with this article? (I’ll let them answer this one)

d. Is it possible that the External Links section really is an appropriate place for such links and it really is OK? (This is the only conclusion that makes sense).

4. UOPSucks.com is essentially a non-fan or anti-fan club. Certainly if a link to Suzy Movie Star Fan Club is allowed, a link to Suzy Movie Star Sucks Club should also be allowed. Everything you can say about UOPSucks.com, you can say the opposite and apply to a fan club website. There have certainly been no objections to posting links to fan clubs in the absence of valid anti-fan club websites; so there should be no problem posting a link to an anti-fan club website in the absence of a fan club website. However, if one exists, it should be linked as well and I have no problem with that.

5. The section of the WP:EL policy they are citing says “Links to be avoided” rather than “prohibited links,” which implies that there is some latitude in the policy. The reliable sources link is provided as a reference; however, the policy is strictly aimed at Wikipedia content and not the content externally linked websites. Additionally, the EL policy does not say that official sources are mandatory or required, it only says that content must not be factually inaccurate or misleading.

6. Despite having discussed various specific aspects of the UOPSucks.com website, N6 and Cascadia have yet to state that UOPSucks.com has misleading or inaccurate content (to my recollection), which is the only item in the “links to be avoided” list of criteria that applies. However, instead of specific citations, they simply cite the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines and dismiss the content because of its source(s), not because the content is actually inaccurate or misleading. It is important to emphasize here that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page specifically says it is a GUIDELINE, and not a policy and “it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception”

7. The bulk of N6 and Cascadia’s arguments are centered on the sources used for UOPSucks.com. I will state now that there are no better sources than UOPsucks.com for most of the information that is presented there. It is full of content from current and former students and faculty. What better source can you find than someone who works there or took classes there? Certainly renowned education experts are not going to enroll at UOP in order to study it (or at least they have yet to do so AFAIK). And certainly UOP will not allow publication of an objective study or audit unless it is nothing but flattering. The kind of research N6 and Cascadia want to see just doesn’t exist, and as a result we have to accept the next best thing. If nothing else, this is a perfect application of the Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules policy. And I’ll state it again: The content on UOPSucks.com deserves to be shared or offered to users, not hidden from them.

Again I’ll state that we appear to be at a stale-mate. The next step appears to be arbitration. How do we submit this dispute for a final judgment? --Rdenke 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stale-mate?

We are going in circles, and I am not interested in retreading the same arguments I've retread several times already. Let me see if I understand your position:

• Any solution that leaves the link out of the article is 100% unacceptable.
  • In particular, adding verifiable information with proper references that covers the issues on uopsucks.com is unacceptable unless the link is also included.
• That the site is neither notable nor a reliable source is irrelevant.
  • Alternately, the site is notable and/or a reliable source. Please demonstrate by direct reference to policy.
• That the site has actively solicited its users to participate in edit wars over the link's inclusion is also irrelevant.
• The phrase "or unverifiable research" in WP:EL has no meaning whatsoever in the context of that policy. (If you disagree, please provide a hypothetical website that would fall under "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" but not "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material".)
• The strong consensus in response to the RfC is irrelevant in resolving this dispute.
• uopsucks.com includes reviews and thus the remainder of its content is not subject to WP:EL.
  • Furthermore, that the site cultivates a systemic bias for negative reviews is irrelevant. Any and all sites providing reviews are suitable for linking, whether the reviews are neutrally solicited or not.
  • Alternately, even the factual claims about UoP as a whole (which are by no means mere accounts the author's specific experiences) presented by the site author constitute reviews, so reviews comprise the totality of site content.
• Cascadia and I are required to campaign for the removal of every inappropriate link from every Wikipedia article before you will take us seriously.

--N6 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also summarize my own position:

• Policy arguments aside, a strong consensus against inclusion emerged from the RfC. Such consensus alone ought to close the book on this dispute.
• Any solution that includes the link in the article without first establishing a strong consensus to do so is unacceptable.
  • If a consensus for inclusion were reached, I would yield to that consensus despite (presumably) opposing it.
  • Adding additional critical information to the article with reference to reputable published sources is entirely acceptable.
• The site has nothing to recommend it by the lights of WP:EL except review content in the discussion forum. This content does not excuse it from adhering to other sections of WP:EL.
  • Furthermore, the site deliberately cultivates a bias for negative reviews in the forum.
  • The forum is used for discussion and other purposes in addition to presenting reviews. This, too, is discouraged by WP:EL.
• The site's blog matches both the spirit and the letter of WP:EL's language on blogs. It is an unfiltered and continuing exposition of the author's experiences and opinions mixed with further sweeping factual claims (unverifiable and otherwise). It constitutes a true blog in almost every sense of the word. "Blog" does not just mean "autobiography in progress".
• The claims made on several pages outside of the discussion forum (especially: [6] [7] [8]) constitute unverifiable research, which is at the very least discouraged by WP:EL.
• The site is non-notable and does not satisfy any portion of WP:RS.
• Appealing to common sense, linking to this site would be shamefully unencyclopedic. This is the sentiment that originally led me to join this dispute.

Please do not bother preparing a counterargument to these points. You have already made your opinions known; I am well aware that your response to each point is that it is false or irrelevant (or both). --N6 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you do not understand my position as is painfully evident from your discourse. I will try to keep it brief.

• The site does not need to satisfy WP:RS. It is only an External Link, not page content.
• A consensus is irrelevant. I could rally the UOPSucks.com users and get a hundred posts to support inclusion of the link if you want. I don't see how that would prove anything, but if it will change your mind I will do it. How many posts do you want to see?
• Adding content is fine with me; however, the UOPSucks.com link should still be listed as an external link.
• An external link does not need to be notable. The policy applies to TOPICS (not links).
• An external link is not mandated to be a reliable source. This guideline applies to ARTICLES (not links).
• Whether or not the users of the site, consisting of the general public, have encouraged an edit war in their forum is not relevant to whether or not this site is a valuable reference for Wikipedia users. I can ask the site owner to delete the thread if you'd like.
• The policy reads: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" which is interpreted as any site that misleads the reader by use of inaccurate material or a site that misleads by use of factually inaccurate material. It is not an exclusive "or." A site that does both also qualifies. UOPSucks.com does not mislead (feel free to show where it does).
• UOPSucks.com is comprised mainly of reviews. Of course WP:EL does apply, but must be applied with reason.
• The Wikipedia definition of blog is a "user generated website." UOPSucks.com users are not allowed to generate (post) entries on the "blog" so it is not a blog per Wikipedia definition. The UOPSucks.com "blog" is an "owner generated website," just like almost any other website.
• UOPSucks.com collects user reviews regardless of the sentiment. The site has collected more negative reviews than positive. Music related fan club websites linked here on Wikipedia have more positive than negative reviews. What's the point? It is impossible to maintain a balance when reviews are solicited from the general public.
• Cascadia and N6 have demonstrated a strong passion for censoring this link from the UOP article; while showing disinterest in censoring similar links from other articles.
• The kind of forum sites discouraged by WP:EL would be like this one. UOPSucks.com's forum is only one of many features of the website.
• UOPSucks.com may contain unverifiable research, but it is not misleading which is what is required to be qualified to be excluded under WP:EL. No one has yet claimed that UOPsucks.com is misleading.
• The fan club and Myspace web page links under MANY, MANY, musician and movie star articles display the same characteristics complained about here... bias (usually positive), user forums, unverifiable research, shamefully unencyclopedic, etc. Yet these links persist without problem. Hundreds or thousands of Wikipedia editors have consented to these links.
• A vast majority of articles here have links to sites that are unencyclopedic. WP:EL does not state this as a requirement as EL's are intented to be supplemental material, not replacement material.

--Rdenke 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You've just rehashed your arguments over again. It's very confusing that you claim I don't understand your position, since you've said nothing to contradict what I posited as your position. (You may assert that you think "or unverifiable research" carries some force in WP:EL, but your insistence on narrowly defining "to mislead" to mean "to present factual inaccuracies" gives the lie to this assertion.) Perhaps you missed that the second set of points was my position.

I suggest you make note of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets and perhaps WP:COI to temper your threats of enlisting uopsucks users to supposedly establish your preferred "consensus". If you see consensus as a mere formality to be overcome, then you have a fundamental disagreement with one of the core principles of this encyclopedia--a principle that the sum total of all site visitors in the history of uopsucks would prove woefully insufficient to overturn.

We appear to be at an impasse. I'm going to abandon the endless and entirely fruitless wikilawyering (on both sides) that has marked this RfM so far, appeal to common sense and the spirit of WP:CON, and bow out. If our mediator has anything further to add, I'll still be watching this page.

In hindsight, I foolishly legitimized this dispute by bringing it before MedCom as if it were a substantive policy debate. In requesting mediation, I've unnecessarily given the squeaky wheel the grease rather than considering the dispute resolved per the obvious consensus demonstrated by the response to my RfC. This is a result of my relative inexperience with Wikipedia disputes, and I will not make the same mistake in the future.

--N6 10:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

N6 and Rdenke, I thank you for continuing to try and establish your positions. You have both done very well, and I applaud that. Rdenke, if you will allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute, I would like you to explain how consensus is irrelevant. WP:CON is a guideline that users of Wikipedia take very seriously. If you read the conesenus guideline, it also mentions consensus vs. supermajority, which is exactly what you were trying to bring up, by saying that you could simply bring more people to vote. The WP:CON article says that "simple vote counting" isn't enough. Also, attempting to say that other sites also have unencyclopedic links is throwing a red herring into this debate. I know that external links are a problem, but that doesn't justify keeping this one because others are. Also, N6, I charge you with keeping a cool head and attempting to keep at this mediation. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think I'm calmer now than I was while arguing the minutiae of EL. It suddenly struck that I was under no particular obligation to seek mediation to begin with; the question had already been settled by consensus emerging from the RfC. I have needlessly indulged, with pages upon pages of pettifoggery, a single-purpose account with an extremely selective respect for policy who thinks consensus is irrelevant.

I won't officially withdraw from mediation, because it's possible Rdenke is simply not yet familiar with things like CON, COI, and MEAT. N6 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word irrelevant with regard to consensus was a bit strong. My issues with the consensus thing are three-fold:

• There were only 4 replies other than N6 and Cascadia. If it were 10 or more, that would be more of a consensus than a mere 4 replies. 4 replies is not a strong or conclusive consensus.

I cannot control the number of respondents to an RfC. If an RfC is required to produce 10 responses before it may be considered evidence of consensus, then the entire RfC process probably ought to be scrapped, because this almost never happens. N6 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The website UOPSucks.com represents an unpopular viewpoint. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to find a consensus in support of linking to a site that is negative or critical towards feel-good topics like children, animals, public service, education, etc. NO MATTER HOW APPROPRIATE THE LINK MAY BE.

You're accusing the entire corpus of WP editors of bad faith. This may be another ill-conceived strategem. N6 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• At least two of the comments errantly and flippantly cited WP:EL as their reasoning, which is the policy that permits and encourages a link to UOPSucks.com.

You say "errantly", I say "obviously". These commenters presumably felt, as I do, that question at hand deserved nothing more than flippancy. Note: stating the eccentric position that EL encourages linking to sites like uopsucks as if it were obvious to everyone does not actually make it obvious to everyone. N6 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have opened an Request for Arbitration to hopefully get an official decision on this from the gurus. IF they say it's not appropriate, I will have no choice but to drop my arguments. Regardless of the outcome, I thank you for the spirited discussion and wish you all the best of luck. --Rdenke 08:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a forewarning, the ArbCom rarely hears content disputes without some kind of formal referral from the MedCom. I personally do not feel this is a matter for Arbitration, as it is a minor content dispute. This being said, I will not formally refer this to the ArbCom, as I honestly feel RFC or RFM is the best medium to go. What would you three say to opening an official RFC at WP:RFC, where it could most likely gain wider exposure? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this issue should go to Arbitration, just because one person feels that the link must be included. I would agree to adding the issue to WP:RFC if that would satisfy Rdenke. Otherwise, I think this is an open and shut case. Rdenke is looking for something official in a Community Project where consensus, even if it is 4:1 is the deciding factor, and usually not an official ruling. Cascadia 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We already had an official RfC. Do you feel opening another one on the same issue is likely to be useful? N6 17:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it would be a waste of time. Opening another RfC would likely not generate additional comments from other well-established editors with more edits under their belt. Rdenke has also mentioned rallying support for his cause by getting non-editors to join up to comment. Whether or not he actually intends to do this is not the question, only that the statement has been made. If we must do another RfC, it needs to be of editors. I have good-faith that Rdenke wouldn't resort to such a tactic, but it has been expressed. Cascadia 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said you could control the number of responses to RfC. I'm just saying that the number we got wasn't conclusive. You could ask a group of 5 people if they smoked. 1 says yes. You can't then conclude that 20% of the US population smokes. All I'm saying is that at least a few more responses are needed for a meaningful conclusion. Lack of responses is inconclusive, and perhaps indicative of reluctant support.

I'm not accusing the entire corpus of WP editors of bad faith which you've said a couple of times. According to this guideline, I am to assume that the editors are trying to help the project, not hurt it. My viewpoint here is that the editors believe they are trying to help by keeping a xxxsucks.com site from being linked to. My assertion is that they are judging UOPSucks.com by its name and not by its content and possible value. I appreciate the fact that you two have carefully evaluated the site, even if we don't agree on things.

These commenters presumably felt, as I do, that question at hand deserved nothing more than flippancy.

It shocks me to see this comment from you. You have accused UOPSucks.com of prejudice and bias, when you yourself have just made a statement of incredible prejudice. This is the exact situation that I speak of with regard to the supposed consensus. Any link proposed to any article ought to fully and carefully evaluated, and not just on the name of the site or the first impressions of the site, but based on careful evaluation of content and application of policies. It is obvious this does not occur very often due to the number of aforementioned inappropriate links in other articles. It is not a stretch that the same thing has occured in this case.

I don't see the point in opening another RfC. --Rdenke 05:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View

I don't like to interject, but...

Call to action on uopsucks.com forum:

"I would appreciate help from all of you in the edit war. Please create accounts there and make the changes while logged in. This will be better if all edits are not anonymous."

Conflict of interests guideline:

"A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article." ...[snip]... "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest."

Guidelines on EL Spam:

"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam"

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links

"Wikipedia articles are not (...) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."

Take the above for what you will. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoned?

Since Rdenke has filed an WP:RFAR, and I'm observing comments from N6 that this mediation is serving no purpose, do you all wish to close it? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would consent to close provided there are no objections from the other participants. I'm ambivalent, myself. n₆^c 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree... we're going in circles. Cascadia 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

These guys aren't willing to compromise. --Rdenke 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE n₆^c 07:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this being said, I'm going to close the mediation. If you all think it can be done productively at a later date, please open a new request. I do give you all credit for a good-faith effort, though. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)