Talk:Seymour High School (Connecticut)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet been assessed. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary. [FAQ]
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.

My students should check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools page.

This page has been started by the web design students at Seymour High School. You can visit our blog at shsweb.blogspot.com. We are trying to make the page within our class setting. We know the page isnt perfect yet, but its part of the learning process we hope to use in class. Hopefully we will learn the protocal quicker so we can get some pages up.


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia isn't a classroom

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has specific guidelines. Other wiki software is avalible if you are learning the process, but Wikipedia is not meant as a classroom. Unless you are contributing to the resource in compliance with the guidelines you agreed to by joining the site, I will continue to revert the article to edits that do comply with Wikipedia policy. Plasticbadge 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes it is a classroom

I think the Wikipedia is meant to be a classroom.

The main page for wikipedia says this....

Most youths will likely at some point become involved in interactive online activities. For educators, youths' involvement with Wikipedia provides an opportunity to survey youths' understanding of online safety, and to teach appropriate practices. Educators can use Wikipedia as a way of teaching students to develop hierarchies of credibility that are essential for navigating and conducting research on the Internet. Wikipedia provides an opportunity for teachers to discuss the concept of the public domain. Wikipedia is an opportunity to participate in an open community that relies primarily on mutual respect and cooperation, but which is not related to familiar authority figures some youths might tend to oppose.

So we might have some disagreement. But the wikipedia community seems to think this is an appropriate place to learn the collaborative process. We are doing this on a page that had not been created yet and students are eager to create. Give us a chance. I think you would be much more productive if you gave suggestions here for the students to read rather than highjacking the page. I do beleive wikipedias procedure is pretty clear for newcomers  :Don't bite the newcomers BrandtSchneider 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a classroom for learning the Wiki program. Learn, but I'm not obliged to let sloppy work stand. For example leaving "Fairfield" as the location. I'm gald you want to contribute, but keep in mind Wikipedia at large and the article in specific are not you your personal pet. Please feel free to add content as you see fit, but I will continue to edit the content to Wikipedia's standards. - Plasticbadge 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Those errors were being worked on and we had a fire drill. Then an evacuation of the school (everyone went home). Again, give us a chance. I was ready to proofread everything as soon as we got back in the building. We are not sloppy.BrandtSchneider 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome students!!!! If you want to practice coding, go to Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you want to learn how to participate in an online collaboration project, you are going to have to learn to collaborate with people who don't go to Seymour High School (Connecticut). The standard of this particular online collaborative community (Wikipedia) include that (1) ANYONE can edit and (2) there are certain documentation/sourcing/formatting standards that the entire wikipedia community will follow. The first lesson you Seymorians should learn is to play well with others. . MPS 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, just give us a chance to get started. This isnt a contact sport.BrandtSchneider 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
playing well with others is certainly the lesson Wikipedia has taught me. Coul we contain future class discussions to one or two discussion headings in the future, please? This place will otherwise get very cluttered very quickly. -Plasticbadge 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Examples

Hey Seymorians. I would recommend you take a look at some other examples to see what Wikipedia articles on schools tend to look like. Douglas_S._Freeman_High_School comes to mind, but also other schools in the category called Category:High schools in Virginia would be good examples.

Thank you. This is exactly what we have been doing. We have been looking at pages, checking guidelines, etc...We are trying very hard to edit the pages correctly. Just give us a chance to get them up.BrandtSchneider 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson Two

The first thing I would suggest about improving this page is the intro paragraph. Why is this school notable? MPS 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. THIS is the type of help from the community I was hoping for. many students HW is to research this and add to the page tomorrow.BrandtSchneider 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
you are welcome... As you go along, ask yourself what other questions somone unfamilar with this school might have. That's what shows notability. Why was it founded? Who is it named after... History section should answer questions about the past, not about what is "currently" going on. PS use asterisks to respond with a bullet/ and colon to indent. MPS 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks against me - rather pathetic

It might interest you to know that some of your students have vandalized my userpage, calling me a "douchebag", a "fag", and a "bloody wanker". I'm not sure what kind of class you are running, but from what i can tell it is quite out of control. I've stepped back to let you make your changes after talking with some members of the community here, but it might be a good opportunity to discuss internet etiquette with your students. - Plasticbadge 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, listen. I deleted the comments from the pages within 90 seconds and you keep putting them back. The students were disciplined and that should be the end of the story. I think it was in everybody's best interest to delete the comments. If you keep them up I am not sure your point is valid.BrandtSchneider 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The talk page should be a full record of the making of an article. Wikipedia is run on a set of protocols, and is not subject to your personal taste in appropriate language. See the policy below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_censored

Do not delete "objectionable" content in the future. Wikipedia's policy is very clear about that. - Plasticbadge 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok now that we got that cleared up, what needs to change about the article? How aboput establishing notability... MPS 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a good way to start might be to mention notable Alumni (aka persons with established Wikipedia entries). keep in mind that some of the minimalists (I would not count myself among them) on Wikipedia will tag this article for deletion unless notability is established. MPS is entirely right that notability should be a priority. - Plasticbadge 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We are working on that right now. We are exploring what is "notable". You can be very notable locally, but not globally. Thanks for the input.BrandtSchneider 18:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

I've been keeping an eye on this article, and I thought I've give some feedback. First, there is no need for external links for the track schedule and directory - both pages are accessible through the main school site. Please remove these redundant links. Second, there are no citations for most of the information given. If you don't cite your sources for the content in the article, the information can be removed for that reason alone. All information must be verifiable by external sources - no original research. Another issue is the overly colorful language that infringes on the neutral point of view, like "456 scholars in nine spacious rooms". In Wikipedia, this should be "465 students in nine rooms of x feet sq dimension". For more information on Wikipedia's policy of NPOV, please read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Additionally, I noticed that someone changed the color of the text in "gold" under school colors. Unfortunately, this kills the link and serves no informational purpose. Please restore the link. Lastly, what progress has been made regarding notability? While I agree with you that local notability is significant, Wikipedia tends to define notability in terms of its own articles or in some quantified way (eg existing articles about alumni or a study that places the school at the top or bottom of some list, etc.). Notability is very important, as if it is not established there are members of this community that WILL put it up for deletion. Good luck with your changes. - Plasticbadge 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Another idea: Is the mission statement really necessary? It is massive,resists easy formating, and is easily available on the school's webpage. Not only that, but its is fairly common - most hs's have msiion statements that speak about improving character etc. It should probably be struck IMhO. - Plasticbadge 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it depends on if you think mission is central to the identity of the school. Does mission define a school or do alumni and buildings?BrandtSchneider 16:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
To an extent, sure. My biggest problem is that the information is one of the main links in the school's website and would not at all be difficult to find. Also, it doesn;t seem many other school articles include this information (or if they do it is concise). It really should be cut down or cut out. - Plasticbadge 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson 3: the Wisdom of crowds

The Wisdom of crowds: None of us is smarter than all of us. I have added stub and cleanup templates. This will accelerate the improvement of this article. MPS 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

The Hope Club edits fit the school criteria as marked by wikipedia

Extracurricular activities — Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of school, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc. BrandtSchneider 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case it should be matched with similar entries for those organizations. Standing alone it serves little purpose. If it is kept, I would hope that the bloat be cut down to the essentials. Listing every event every group has participated in is far from practical and will quickly balloon the article to unmanageable proportions. - Plasticbadge 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Other entries should be added soon (after the holiday), if there is a wikpedia guideline for what you say (can't stand alone, serves little purpose) please attach it so we can follow those rules. I think we are pretty on target for the school guidelines. The HOPE club is THE notable club and reflects the vision and mission of the school(you have discouraged us not to list ALL the clubs, remember).BrandtSchneider 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would note that simply putting "all citations can be found in refrence links" is not acceptable. Each fact must be directly sited to a page, not just directed to a collection of pages. It defeats the purpose of citation in the first place if the reader must personally check all the reference material himself. - Plasticbadge 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That can be our next project, to footnote the paragraphs. We might even get it done today if we figure it out.BrandtSchneider 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying hard to find to find other examples of references in CT school articles to model our work after. I cant find any. I think we are way ahead of the curve. Perhaps, plasticbadge you can help us on this?BrandtSchneider 12:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yearbook edit: Colin, make sure you include notable information if you include the yearbook.BrandtSchneider 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great schools

I feel great schools should not be included in the links. All information there is taken directly from the CSDE website which is linked directly above it. Parent reviews from 2-3 years ago are irrelevant and go against wikipedias guidelines of verifiable content.

This is an external link, so verifiability is not as important as it is in internal content. GS links appears on quite a few like articles on High Schools. Unless the content was identical to the link above it (it is not), there is really no reason to remove the link, even if the unique feature s such as parent reviews are underused at present.

Also, please sign your posts in the future. - Plasticbadge 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They are on a lot of entries because they pay to have their pages come up in search results so they are easy to find. All the content is identical except for the "parent reviews" which are only two reviews from 2-3 years ago. If you want you can link directly to the survey on the seymourSchools website. No valuable information is added by including this link. I dont think they have a place on a site like wikipedia.BrandtSchneider 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant as a gateway to information. Simply linking only to the school's official website would be pointless, so incorporating all available resources is important. The GS page for this school may be sparse at the moment, but if the other school pages on that site are any indication (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), the SHS page on Great Schools will develop into a unique resource over time. External links are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and GS appears on many highschool articles with good reason. The SHS page on GS might not be as mature as those of other schools, but it would be inconsistent to leave out something that is such a staple on similar Wikipedia articles.- Plasticbadge 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If or when it develops, that would be the time to include it. Currently it has redundent information that is copied from the State Dept Site. I dont see the point of linking to a site that simply copies information. You were adament when we were creating this page that wikipedia is NOT the place for information that is in development. The only independent information on that site is the 2 parent reviews from 2-3 years ago. I really don't think this information is relevant for wikipedia. We don't link to "Rate my Teacher" either. If this site develops and includes information that isnt simply copied, then fine, include it. But right now it is not a quality site. The link should be removed.68.191.61.212 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
According to wikipedia ratemyteachers is "It is fair to say the credibility of this site is often questioned.". I dont see the point of including it in wikipedia. I don't think it fits wikipedia guidelines. I dont think we should link to sites simply because we can.BrandtSchneider 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Like the site or not, GS is a staple of similar Wikipedia articles, and with good reason. Taking only the department of education’s numbers would be like a biographer writing a biography using only one interview. The interviewee may lie, forget, or just not know a lot. Redundancies are a form of fact checking, and something you will find all over Wikipedia. Anyway, this site has other features not found on the official websites in addition to the shared content. If one is to be removed, I would nominate the official. But keeping both is ideal.

RateMyTeachers (and for college RateMyProfessors) has become the dominant resource for choosing classes. What could be more relevant than first hand ratings of the faculty of the organization? The article isn’t citing it, of course, but it is a valuable resource for students. This is what external links are for. Say what you will about the credibility of the site, but I schedule courses relying heavily on its big brother, and I have rarely been disappointed. Teachers hate it (understandably), but the site is a uniquely powerful aggregation tool. If Wikipedia has taught us anything, it is the wisdom in crowds.

I will also add that your involvement in this page is becoming a bit questionable. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to not aggressively modify articles about themselves or organizations with which they are directly associated. This is usually where conflicts of interest comes into play. It was one thing when you were showing your students how to use Wikipedia, but your recent behavior has been almost exclusively negative. Removing relevant external links because you don’t find them worthy (often multiple times without discussion) is going to raise a few eyebrows. Wikipedia is not a propaganda device, it is an information resource. -Plasticbadge 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wisdom of crowds shows that rate my teachers is questionable. The quote is from wikipedia. It is nothing near traditional forms of survey techniques. Wikipedia itself says this is not a valuable site. I am not sure how you can say wikipedia includes great schools, thus it must be valuable, yet wikipedia says rate my teacher is questionable, but we still must include it. Your logic is flawed.

"Uniquely powerful aggregation tool". Huh? Unique? Hardly. Powerful? Hardly. The CSDE has much more information about student course selection, faculty excellence, and student data. The rate site doesnt even list current staff. More than 80% of the current staff either aren't listed or have evaluations more than 3 years old. How can that be a "uniquely powerful aggregation tool"?

And how is the great school site fact checking? They simply copy. Copying is not fact checking. Redundency is only valuable if the information is obtained independently or from multiple sources. That is simply not the case here. There is no independence to those facts.

And please, if you question my ethics please bring an independent arbitor into the discussion. I welcome that discussion.68.191.61.212 02:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't need an arbiter - you should police yourself without wasting anyone's time. Wikipedia policy and precedent is clear regarding instances of editing one's own articles. As I said earlier, RateMyTeachers is uniquely useful as an external link. No other site provides its functionality (your initial argument against Great Schools). RateMy... may not be the only such teacher rating site, but it is the standard in use. I can only speak from personal experience in calling the site a powerful resource, but your opinion is unquestinably biased. For a teacher open-minded enough to introduce your students to collaborative projects like Wikipedia, you seem quite unimpressed by RateMy..., which runs on a similar model. If anything, RateMy... runs on a more classically open source model than does Wikipedia, with powerful Torvalds figures for each school. I'm less than convinced of your ability to stay objective over sites like RateMy... which may be critical of your friends and colleagues. -Plasticbadge 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, wikipedia disagrees with you. I suggest you go to the wikipedia page on rate my teacher and post your comments there. If your comments pass muster there, then fine. That page has nothing to do with me and my apparent inability to analyze any educational site objectively. An odd comment since you cite your personal experience as the main reason you include it. But I digress....And again, 80% of my current friends and colleagues are not on this site or have comments that are more than 3 years old. The other survey I alluded to was much more complete.BrandtSchneider 11:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The site is only controversial because teachers dislike it. I can appreciate the reasons for this, but I've never met a student who would turn his nose up at such a resource. Most of them are quite capable of distinguishing outdated, vindictive, or clearly false reviews from those that ring true. Despite your (and just about every other educator's) feelings, the site is increasingly an unspoken part of the education system. Again, I ask what could be more relevant than evaluations of the school's faculty? It may be imperfect, but so is Wikipedia. -Plasticbadge 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you should move this discussion to the rate my teacher page. You continually value the "wisdom of crowds" and wikipedia seems to feel ratemy teacher is not a quality site. I value evaluations of the faculty and proposed two independent evaluations that are much more valuable than ratemyteacher. I suggest you move your evaluation of ratemyteacher to that page and see if it passes muster. If we use the criteria that you use for so much other items I think we should remove the link until wikipedia or other independent forms demonstrate its value. I encourage you to back up your claim that ratemyteacher is "increasingly a unspoken part of the education system" on the ratemyteacher page. I'd be interested to see what evidence you have. Again, lets move the discussion there.BrandtSchneider 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I follow your logic. You want me to defend exactly what: the site or its inclusion here? Wikipedia doesn't have an official statement on the value of the site, individual users do. Those opinions are mixed, and the site is controversial, that I will admit. So is Wikipedia. If someone is going to put their faith in Wikipedia, I don't see why they would cower from RateMy... As I said, if anything RateMy... follows a more classical Open Source model than Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd like a warning applied next to the link? "RateMy... is a user generated site - like Wikipedia." Sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? -Plasticbadge 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both links should be removed. You have often put stock in the wisdom of crowds ("GS is a staple of similar Wikipedia articles") to push for including things. I have pushed back. Wikipedia sees ratemyteacher as being controversial and you have called it "uniquely powerful". I don't see the purpose in putting an external link to a page wikipedia says is controversial and has little value. We disagree on that obviously. I only ask that you take your argument to that page. If you feel strongly enough that the link should be on pages see if you can convince others about it on that page that ratemyteacher is valuable (I doubt you can, I think you know it is a hard discussion to win). If you can convince that "crowd of wisdom" that the site has value, then it should be included as an external link that has valuable information about the school. Until then, the link should be removed.BrandtSchneider 22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility is often questioned. So what? The RateMy... article also says "The site is now one of the most comprehensive educational rating sites on the web." and "Constant reviews take place to ensure that moderators are doing their "job" right, and if found to be doing it wrong, they are removed to ensure quality of the service provided." The system is closer to Wikipedia than you seem ready to admit. What makes Wikipedia more worthy in your opinion? -Plasticbadge 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine, I just find it odd that you don't feel that may be corporate speak. Most of that page was created by two editors whose only contributions are for that page. Your talk page writes about how you fight against that. Do you?

If wikipedia is flawed then I dont think we can use the argument that "other school sites include greatschools" so we should include it here. I dont think that you can have it both ways. BrandtSchneider 12:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? My biggest Wikipedia pet peeve is when companies pay people or ask employees to influence their articles and those of rivals. To me there is not worse abuse of the user-contributed content system. The situation you describe, where only a few editors create and edit an article has nothing to do with that. Realistically, Wikipedia doesn't have enough editors to have healthy participation on every article. If I see blatant abuse, I will gladly step in, but I am to busy to fact-check every article. As it stands, the RateMy... page appears acceptable to me. I am satisfied with Wikipedia AND RateMy... virtually without exception. The anonymous user-provided system both run on is flawed, but nothing else is nearly as useful in my experience. My views are consistent. You, on the other hand, can't seem to explain why Wikipedia is OK and RateMy... is not. Prove me wrong. Why is one any more credible or less controversial than the other? -Plasticbadge 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratemyteachers

I am removing links to Ratemyteachers.com because the site falls squarely into the realm of criteria 2 and 11 in WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." and "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."

Could someone can explain the difference between Ratemytechers.com and a random person's blog? ... discospinster talk 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How often do news blogs find their way into the external links on articles? Quite often. Users of Wikipedia aren't morons. They can see what is and isn't user-created content, and are apparently alright with such content. After all, they are USING WIKIPEDIA. Noone is being mislead. Discredit RateMy... and you discredit Wikipedia. Neither is perfect, but both are uniquely useful tools. -Plasticbadge 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can show me an example of a news blog in an article, I will consider it as well. ... discospinster talk 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Blog" isn't a dirty word - look at Wonkette and the Drudge Report. As a Wikipedian, I would think you would understand that content need not be conventional and unassailably verifiable to be of use. I would argue that RateMy... is unambiguous, but would you accept a tag next to the link stating that RMT contains unverified, user-provided content? It seems redundant on a site like Wikipedia, but I'm a man of compromise. - Plasticbadge 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)