Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

please don't consider wikipedia as an extension of blogs. 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Desipundit.com

There ar three references to DesiPundit.com in a wikipedia article about IIPM. This makes no sense. Links to Gaurav's/ Rashmi's/ IIM Prof's blog makes sense. One cannot keep linking to every blog that talks about the issue. Please remove references to all random unrelated blogs not related to IIPM.

I have reinstated the link to Desipundit in the External links section. The page linked to is a roundup of blogposts and information on the IIPM/Bloggers controversy, and so I believe it is germane to the article. Kunal 05:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)`

== siddharth ==

People, no pleeeease... I don't think it is fair to bring in finer details of the controversy into Wikipedia. Such things should not go into an encyclopedia. Plus it is still early days.

  • This is wikipedia, not paper encylopedia. So it is a valid wikipedia entry. The whole incidents will go into human history, and it is what wikipedia about : storing editable facts for future generation to learn the lesson.

Nice work guys! A big thanks to all those working on this article. I will also try to chip in with something. I agree that very fine details should not go into this entry. However I suggest that we let the rough draft (possibly with fine details) linger for a few days and then we clean it up... --varunvnair 17:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that this is Wikipedia. Please refrain from linking to your own blogposts unless you are breaking some pertinent news. Blogs may put forward a point of view, Wikipedia must be unbiased. --Kunal.

Keep the tone gentle. This is supposed to be a relatively unbiased space. And perhaps we should wait for developments as regards the legal notices before mentioning them in great detail. --Neha Vish 18:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


I've added the suspension from rankings image. Let these suckers know not to mess with netizens! -- Whateverdude

Good Work

  1. Good work folks. A pretty decent article in 4 hours. Quite good.
  2. I've had to move stuff on IIPM's infrastructure to Bad Jokes and other nonsense with a heavy heart. Let's keep this serious. This should be a factual record of what happened.
  3. I also took out some unsupported allegations about Rashmi Bansal taking money and stuff. More vigilance is needed against this sort of thing.
  4. Let's try to keep the list of External links small. There are more than 300 blog posts on the subject now. Not every one should go there. We should link to only those who add new factual details, not opinions. Thanks - Ravikiran 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

ravikiran : agree with you on what i had written earlier on the 'infrastructure' part - only, it seemed the right thing to do at that moment . an impulse, i agree. i thinking it's shaping up well overall. may add to the 'controversies surrounding...' part, shortly. what do you say ? kuffir.

For the article to become fair/unbiased as it possibly can, we need to add a lot more real information about IIPM to it (stuff not pertaining to the controversy), have the controversy part in a largeish sub section --Vulturo 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Article marked as Biased

I've marked this article as biased, because it contains details based on an evolving controversy. Moreover information provided in this article pertains to lot of other information, not directly related with the institute. I urge users not to treat WIKIpedia as an extension of their blogs. Vijay Krishna

Vijay: Dude, why have you marked the page "In need of Attention? Kunal


Well the article is certainly in need of attention and we will give it the attention it deserves. Also, the article certainly could be biased. But according to Wikipedia:POV check, this tag is supposed to be a way for people to go over the article and check for neutrality. It also says that "In order to make sure that the POV check template cannot be used to effectively brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, explain your reasons on the discussion page, and replace it with the neutrality dispute template, {{NPOV}}."
So here's what I suggest. We will wait till friday the 14th. If someone manages to turn this into an NPOV dispute by then ( by clearly specifying in the talk page where the biases are) then we go with it. Else, I am planning to remove the POV check tag. --Ravikiran 09:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, if we decide to include details about the controversy etc, we should create a new article and link it (prominently) from the main article. That way, we can move the dispute tag away from this page. It would also reduce the content of this article to absolute minimum. For example, just some basic details about the institute. The controversy can be put in a separate article, or much better, an external website. Comments welcome -- Vijay Krishna
  • What is this about? Contraversy is part of ANY organisation history, so why move it out to exernal website. Wikipedia is NOT a giant nice public relation business card for any organisation Sltan 13:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Marked this for POV Check, as this article seems to be about IIPM controvery rather than IIPM alone. Ravi has already mentioned the reasons in "Disputed" section. Sorry for not providing reasons earlier. Square 01:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ravi and others on this issue - the reason why we are adding stuff about the controversy to the page is not to treat it as an extension of our blogs but to make sure that anyone looking for information on IIPM will access ALL the information about IIPM and not just the standard that IIPM would like to see here. An encyclopedia is not s dictionary that will give you the meaning of a word and no more. An encyclopedia should contain elements of everything related to the subject that the user is looking for and we will be moving away from the concept by trying to keep the info about the controversy out of the IIPM page. Whatever has been posted so far is fact, so I don't see what is so controversial about it -- Shanti 9:30, 12 October 2005 (CST)
My intention is not to make the article biased towards IIPM. Just because we assume that what has been stated is the fact, does not mean that an article on Sonia Gandhi should necessarily contain details about how she sought asylum in the Italian embassy during the Emergency. I reiterate that there is a limit to what information an encyclopedia should contain. I thank user Shanti for enlightening me that an encyclopedia should not be as "simplistic" as a dictionary, but even the former should have its limits. Secondly, by concentrating on peripheral things like these we are tampering with the sanctity of Wikipedia, while losing focus on the main issue, the right to freedom of expression. Rest assured, I'm not involving myself in an edit war here for purposes of sanity. I still have no doubts that this article is biased, and that the controversy must be placed separately -- Vijay Krishna
Vijay, I apologize if I came off condescending towards you. I am just trying to be polite and at the same time explain our viewpoint. This is not going to turn into any kind of war, as we have all been pretty civilized regardless of our views - pro or con -- --Shanti 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


A little offtrack, but I think the NPOV Tag should only be removed by Vijay, as he is the one who put it up. I think that will go a long way in establishing the article's accuracy once these disputes are resolved. That said, I think it should be okay to put up details of the controversy as long as we make sure that the details are verifiably true and unbiased. So Vijay, tell us what you feel make this article's point of view non-neutral, so that we can fix it, and we can put up a neutral, unbiased and informative article without the NPOV Tag. --Kunal
as i see it, the iipm issue is not an evolving controversy as vijay krishna calls it, but a ripened scandal. two opposing perceptions form a controversy : when rashmi first disputed the exagerrated claims in iipm advertising it was the right moment for iipm to disprove her report. what iipm undertook, instead, was an exercise in pure intimidation. not an item by item refutation, aided by hard factual evidence. the controversy ended there because there was no opposing perception ( of facts ). all those who rose so heroically in iipm's defense (in rashmi's commentspace ) did not object to rashmi on the grounds of presenting wrong facts. what they did attack were 'peripheral things', as vijay krishna would call them.
what's evolving now is a sordid, but sure, denouement of the iipm saga : iipm is now set to join the ranks of such sensational ( not controversial) acts of mass deception as the ponzi scheme. this page, i believe, reflects the true state of affairs as on today. the day the world discovered auschwitz, they didn't pause to discuss the excellent roads that hitler built. --Kuffir 17:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)kuffir.


I think the page as it exists definitely needs the "In need of attention" tag once again, beacuse it is woefully incomplete. Either find some information on the "Faculty" and "History", or delete those headings, for one. And we should also get this article to conform to the neutral point of view, so we can get that damn tag off. --Kunal. +

I would like to know how we can discuss and close the NPOV issue. If the exact places of non-neutrality are pointed out, it will be easier on editors to correct them/explain them. Thanks! Arianram 17:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (Swami)

Faculty Information

Faculty information about IIPM can be found here. I just need to write it up using a neutral point of view, but I will appreciate anyone who can help me on this -- Ravikiran 17:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tip: If you are logged in, you can sign your posts using "~~~~". It will leave a username and a datetime stamp.

Thanks for the tip. The faculty page on IIPM, though, is empty. Kunal 05:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I had never noticed ;) --Ravikiran 09:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from pursuing an agenda

Folks, I am regular user and occasional contributor to Wikipedia. I am very unhappy to see it is being used to propagate an agenda. It’s all right if you guys don't like IIPM, but running a campaign on wikipedia is simply not done. Please use your blogs for mudslinging and put facts up on this website and let people decide.Wikipedia is not the place to create an article just to malign somebody or some institution Also carrying out attacks in personal nature on people is also not done. I want to dispute the neutrality of this article on the basis of the fact that this article is posted here for the only reason to malign the reputation of IIPM. I don't work for IIPM, have no association with IIPM,never heard about it till the blogwars erupted but I love Wikipedia and would like it to be a source of facts/knowledge and not a source of peoples opinion/agenda.

I cannot defend IIPM on the basis of facts because I don't know anything about it, but I am sure that this whole article is an extension of what is being written in blogs all over. There should be somebody telling the other side of the story, if there is none then it has to be me. The entire article is written using world "claims","its believed", "detractors" etc etc. Please read other content like about Joseph Stalin to learn how to write articles in wikipedia. There is no dispute about what Stalin did, but the article does not start like "Joseph Stalin was a monster" or "Joseph Stalin was a great communist",it pursues neither agenda, so the article is neutral.

My only request is use Wiki as a public resource , not as a tool for extending your point of view.

For all those , who think this might be some disgruntled and anon IIPM student, here are my co-ordinates http://amanthan.blogspot.com Get in touch if you want.

"Venkatesh pr 23:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)"

Disputed

- Have disputed the article because of the following

  1. So called detractors not identified. No facts provided
  2. Please verify sources
  3. For personal attack and opinion
  4. Most of the article has the tone, its believed, detractors have said, etc.
  5. The article is heavily depended on single source JAM magazine. There are hundreds of article about IIPM in reputed Indian newspapers, Websites. None of them have been cited in this article.
  6. Refer to the quote in the beginning of this page, which broadly states the agenda of this article, which in itself is against the spirit of this wiki

" IIPM will pay heavy price for misleading indian. Business in the name of Business education won't work anymore"


Have cleaned up the Advertising Strategy section. Edited the Cluttered Copy text to improve grammar and add more details, and removed the disputed flag. Can anybody point out why exactly this is disputed? I've also removed the point of contention in the MBA rankings text. Presumably it can be restated as 'IIPM stopped publishing Outlook C-Fore rankings after such-and-such date' if anybody has an archive of Education Times copies with the relevant ads.-- Aadisht
Thanks for the feedback. This article would be greatly improved if you cull out factual information from those hundreds of articles in reputable newspapers and websites and add it here. For example, I am looking for information about IIPM's regular faculty. But the page for that on IIPM's website is blank. Unfortunately that has meant that the faculty information here is blank too. Also, the quote at the beginning of the article states the agenda of the person making that quote. As this article has been edited by many people other than him, it is somewhat unfair to impute his agenda on the entire article.
--Ravikiran 05:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I have taken the liberty of correcting the numbering format so that it is more readable.
Thanks Ravi, highly appreciate the fact that you have taken this positively. Frankly I am not going to defend IIPM, but my whole idea is to defend Wikipedia as a source of factual and unbiased information. I presume you are one of the authors of this article, please search for IIPM under news.google.com,to find a few articles. Even otherwise IIPM i gather from what you people have to say, is always in the news. I would say this article is unbiased if you people take time to search for those articles and give reference to them. If you are writing something please back it up with data , its your responsibility. I have neither supported or critized IIPM, but I am critical of the tone of this article.

70.162.97.207 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, this article could also be disputed on the Wikipedia No-Original Research Policy unless the MSM endorses it. --Vulturo 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No. You are misreading that policy. While reporting on the controversy, blogs are primary sources, because the blogs created the controversy in the first place. In any case, JAM is a paper magazine that has been in publication for years. --Ravikiran 12:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have removed the peer review notice as no request for peer review has been made. Please make a request for peer review and tag it again if needed. --Ravikiran 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Alert

Some joker deleted virtually the entire article except the first four lines. I reverted back to the earlier edit, but could somebody please check it again to correct any mistakes I made? Kunal 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is pissing me off. This is the second time I've had to revert the article, and this time I had to revert the talk page too. I've reported the IP of the deleter to Wikipedia as a vandal, and I must warn him/her that if he/she continues with this vandalism, he/she will be banned from Wikipedia. Kunal 12:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The IP that was committing the vandalism resolves to iipm-100-233-16-ind.iipm.edu. -- Ravikiran 20:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Threats of legal action

It has been reported in the Hindustan Times that IIPM's dean A Sandip has confirmed that they are indeed contemplating legal action. So I don't think it is fair to put the "alleged threat" of legal action only into Gaurav's mouth. Further, Gaurav has publicly refused to remove his blog postings. So it is not fair to say that Gaurav "claimed" to refuse to remove his blog postings. Also I have removed the line which says that the magazine's (JAM) credibility has been questioned in the past. Give a source and we will put it back. --Ravikiran 06:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have also removed the line: "even though IIPM's public response clearly rules out any action taken or intention to take any action against any blogger over the issue of 'freedom of speech'." Same reason. The Hindustan times has reported "A. Sandip" has indeed said that they planned to take legal action." -- Ravikiran 06:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have also removed the quote attributed to A Sandeep "though stated that it well within their rights to resort to civil and criminal procedures under defamation laws." as unsourced. The Express article attributes it to "Advocate Vishwas Patel" not to Mr. Sandeep. --Ravikiran 06:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And excuse me, 203.122.61.30, what was the point of changing the statement by A. Sandip in the Hindustan Times? If he has been misquoted, please give references. He has clearly said "But we are going to take legal action against the blogger for defamation. The person is identifiable. It is a legal notice against the person and not the blog." There is no reference to his saying that it is a "case of defamation rather than free speech". Just because there is an edit link, don't think that you can make facts go into the memory hole. There is also the "history" link. --Ravikiran 07:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


I have disputed a statement made in this article:

  • "Varna however later expressed doubt over the genuinity (sic) of the legal notice. She agreed that it could have been a prank particularly because IIPM denied having sent any such legal notices when approached by media."

Your statement is not consistent with the post from Varna's blog which you have cited. Please cite a relevant source, or this statement will be deleted.

I have also reverted the changes you made to the external links section. If you have a reason to do so, please discuss it on this page. If you edit large sections of this article without stating your reasons, you will be reported as a vandal. Kunal 06:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Controversies and IIPM's response to criticism

Please cite sources (if any). IMO, the identity of the IIPM bloggers is as yet unknown, and it is only conjectured that they are IIPM students or Planman employees. --Kunal 16:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

IIPM's supposed statement

To my knowledge, there is no confirmation in the MSM about that statement. If someone can find it on IIPM's site or on some media site, please cite that source -- Ravikiran 10:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Article marked as a copyright issue

Metalmaverick recently added this article, The Indian Institute of Planning and Management, to Wikipedia:Copyright problems claiming that "IIPM" and "The Indian Institute of Planning and Management" are copyrighted terms in India. Metalmaverick's claim is invalid as the only law that applies to Wikipedia is U.S. and Florida law. Adraeus 11:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The statement that the only laws that apply to Wikipedia are US and Florida laws is blatantly wrong as Wikipedia has accepted that pages that go against local national laws will be deleted (please check Wikipedia's copyright laws before commenting. Please do not put incorrect statements so blatantly.Metalmaverick
Apparently, you're confusing two mostly separate issues: a) the laws that can be applied and enforced by governmental organizations, and b) how the Wikipedia bureaucracy deals with conflict. Next time you have the urge to lecture a veteran Wikipedia editor, who happens to be a successful American business executive, about U.S. law and how law affects Wikipedia, I strongly recommend against doing so. In fact, I recommend you leave Wikipedia alone since your behavioral history indicates you're on a self-destructive route that will simply lead to your eventual ban. Adraeus 14:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


MetalMaverick, I hope you took permission from the institute before mentioning those terms on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. That institute is notoriously sue-happy and I wouldn't want you to get into legal trouble for mentioning those two forbidden terms yourself. --Ravikiran 18:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Article marked for deletion

Dear users, the article contains many slanderous, libellous and defamatory statements. According to Wikipedia policy, such pages are not welcome. I am recommending that these pages may be deleted appropriately. We shall of course employ all the available forums at Wikipedia and we do respect the various comments of the authors with respect to this issue. Regards. Metalmaverick

Why don't you collect the other POV and post it here ? You can ofcourse post news about IIPM's defense, if they made any Tintin 13:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
On another look, it does seem to have some POV issues. The leading paragraph should not concentrate so much on the controversy. I think the comment that it were the IIPM students who created the fake blogs would be an unverifiable claim. Tintin 13:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, we don't delete articles when we can fix them. Adraeus 14:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Metalmaverick: We = who? -- Kunal 16:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Metalmaverick is acting on behalf of the IIPM. Adraeus 04:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Metalmaverick, I see you are hell bent on deleting the article ? I have marked the article biased because lot of the information mentioned here was hear-say and not substantiated with data. Now I see, the authors of this article are collecting more and more data to substantiate their claims ? It still is biased, but its improving by the day. But I see that you are not interested in improving the WIKI,but for defending IIPM. If you can contradict or raise disputed over fact presented, do so. But refrain from defending IIPM just for the heck of it. I can see you are a part of IIPM. Venkatesh pr 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of some sections

I made an attempt to lessen the PoV a bit with the following changes.

1. Replaced the two paragraphs about the controversy in the leading section with a single line. The second of these paragraphs was merged with the section on the JAM article.

2. The section 'Threats of Legal Action' was renamed as 'Controversies'

3. Section Controversies and IIPM's response to criticism was moved down, and renamed 'Response to cricticism'

4. The above section originally read :

  • IIPM students (according to some, PR division of Planman Consulting) have responded to the critisism by creating fake blog (most IIPM bloggers have just one post) and leaving derogatory comments (including personal attacks) and misleading information on blogs of their critics. This include a misleading story about an unsubstantiated investigation of JAM by an Indian news channel AajTak. [dubious – discuss]

Re. derogatory comments in blogs, what we know is from the owners of these blogs that they come from IIPM IP addresses. While this might be true, there is no way this can be verified. For fake blogs we have even less information. Rewrote this to :

  • While the controversy was on, a number of fake blogs spawned in defense of IIPM and the blogs of IIPM critics were spammed with derogatory comments, including personal attacks and misleading information about the critics. This includes a misleading story about an unsubstantiated investigation of JAM by an Indian news channel AajTak. Tintin 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

IMI's Credentials

Hi, I've added a link to a page that tried to research IMI's credentials and verified its "unknown" status and allegations against it of being a "diploma mill". I have also removed the dubious tags for those two statements. -- Kunal 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'diploma mill' comment is for IMI but in the article it is used for IIPM. I am changing it to point to IMI. Tintin 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the "dubious" tag, I had put them there, for lack of proper information. Was going to remove them myself in light of new information

Venkatesh pr 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Last words

A few issues that I cannot/am not planning to do anything about.

1. Is the faculty section necessary ? The names mean nothing to most people.

2. 'Cluttered Copy' in the Advertisement section doesn't sound good. Should be replaced with something milder

3. It would be good to scan a pic of an IIPM ad - preferably one that supports the comments under the 'Rankings' section.

4. Sandeep's statement is too long. It may be merged into the text instead of quoting verbatim.

5. Add a reference to the Sandeep statement. Tintin 15:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of these faculty before and unless there is a write-up on them or links linking them the names wd just remain useless bits of data. Pls remove them or link them. --Gurubrahma 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


We could chuck the names of Faculty and quote the Businessworld article to explain that most of the faculty are MBAs from IIPM, and their average age. I was afraid to upset the delicate NPOV balance that we've achieved so far. -- Ravikiran 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am for removing the faculty section altogether. Btw, I am not able to access the BW article. For registration, it asks for $s. Tintin 14:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed this so far. The BW link is free registration. Use Bugmenot to get a userid and password. --Ravikiran 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Peer Review Removal

As I understand, the request for peer review was inappropriate in the first place, because the process is supposed to be a final step on the way to featured article status, i.e. a way to improve articles that are already pretty good, but could do much better. Much as I like this article, I do not think that it will ever make featured article. As expected, the request has received no response so far. According to the Removal policy, inactive requests can be removed after 14 days. So anyone reading this after 30th October, please archive the request and remove the tag. --Ravikiran 11:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have archived the Peer review per policy --


Empty vessels make (the most) noise

Authors of this article have proved this adage. Although, the article may be all fact no nonsense, it is disheartneing to see wikipedia as a forum for reaction to real life. Further, the contents of this article seem to corroborate this story about wikipedia quality problems doles 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :-) Tintin 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The heading, "Advertising Strategy" is not getting displayed properly. Any HTML experts, please correct. I tried but was not able to fix the format issue. Ganeshk 21:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :-) - Fix what? the authors? I have no trouble understanding the {{sofixit}} process, i wish i could fix attitudes. That would be awesome! doles 15:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It is so much more easier to cricticise the authors than attempting to improve the article yourself, eh ? :-). Give it a try if you have time and interest. The second half of it could well do with a complete overhaul. We have been adding things for too long instead of rewriting them. Tintin 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not mean to criticize the authors. What i stated above is that 1. I understand the sofixit concept. 2. Respected opinions and attitudes of individuals cannot be "fixed" by other individuals. in other words, if everyone had the same opinion and attitude - there wont be any need for collaboration. However, due to the very differences referenced above, wikipedia is not the "best" encyclopedia of the world. That is the disheartening realization. Authors: you are great. doles 18:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Sachin, were you talking of the quality of the article or of our attitudes? --Ravikiran 17:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you asked. I guess I was talking about the use of wiki for furthering agenda and was referring to propensity of individuals to support agenda on wikipedia. Please also refer to the article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/. I guess one has to either get used to wikipedia the way it is (since it is the way most things will be) or one has to change wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia. doles 18:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I've read that article, but I still don't understand. I of course have a point of view about IIPM. I don't like them much. But the only way my attitude can matter on Wikipedia is when it has an impact on this article. So why don't we discuss the quality of the article rather than my attitude(or the attitudes of other authors who may or may not share my dislike of IIPM)? Fixing my attitude seems a rather roundabout way to fix the article, especially when it is so much easier to click on the "discuss" and "edit" links than it is to pay for my shrink --Ravikiran 19:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
If you read my response to your question above, you may notice that I have not even mentioned the word attitude. If anything, I respect your attitude - and agree that it is unnecessary to "fix" it (with or without shrinks). Hope there is no further misunderstanding. I am curious to know whether you find wikipedia far superior to an encyclopedia brittanica or to a world book. doles 19:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have the 2003 edition of Britannica in my PC but I almost never use it when I am online. That should indicate where my preferences are. I am a bit of an 'information junkie' and EB articles are too short for my liking, and I also like to think that I can spot a severe POV when I see one.
IIPM article has obvious handicaps - the editors had to try not to displease anyone and in trying to do that ended up with a different kind of POV, something that will not happen in a regular encyclopaedia. 75% of the article is about the controversy, but once the issue dies out, we could compress it into a paragraph. But unfortunately, IIPM is more known now for this than their courses, and IMHO these sort of articles are the exception than the rule. Tintin 20:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


It depends on what you are looking for. Take any article from EB and I am sure that the corresponding article in WP is as good or better than EB's. Take any article from WP... and chances are you will not find the corresponding article in WP - because WP's coverage is much broader. An article on an obscure topic which provides limited, biased, but factually correct information is probably better than no article at all, but if it provides but factually incorrect information, it is worse than no article. So take your pick. As for IIPM, well...
Try this exercise - write an article on Hometrade.com. Howmuchever neutral you keep the tone, will you ever be able to write a truthful article that does not say that the business was an out and out fraud from day one? --Ravikiran 13:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)