Talk:Loyola Law School: Difference between revisions
→Third opinion: re |
Updatethis12 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
===Third opinion=== |
===Third opinion=== |
||
I'm going to reset the third opinions. Two editors, anomie and Adrian M.H. provided an opinion before listening to both sides. This is in violation of Wikipedia rules described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly." Anomie and Adrian M.H. please kindly recuse yourselves from this dispute. --[[User:Updatethis12|Updatethis12]] 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My [[WP:3O|opinion]]: If this were an external link, it would clearly fall under [[WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided]] item 11. For inclusion under "notable alumni" it should probably meet [[WP:N]], which as far as I can tell it does not. The linked article is clearly a candidate for deletion under [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The absence of reliable independent verification is another crucial nail in its coffin. Just leave it out and if anyone adds it again, there are ways to deal with that if and when it happens. '''''[[User:Adrian M. H.|<font color="navy">Adrian</font>]] [[User talk:Adrian M. H.|<font color="navy">M. H.</font>]]''''' 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Admins, please don't be guided solely by EditorEsquire's terribly unrepresentative description. He is one IP, and if you view the edit history you'll see there were three IPs in support of adding the Loyola 2L reference. Please allow some time for everyone to comment on this dispute. --[[User:Updatethis12|Updatethis12]] 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Updatethis12: FYI, I am not an admin. My opinion wasn't based on what EditorEsquire said. Instead, I looked at the text under dispute, and the article linked from that text, and found absolutely nothing to indicate notability. If you want to get support for adding Loyola 2L to the list of alumni, you have to do two things: |
|||
:::# Find [[WP:RS|reliable independent references]] for the blog's notability. Note that these must pertain to Loyola 2L particularly, and not to whatever views Loyola 2L may express in their blog. |
|||
:::# Find a [[WP:RS|reliable independent reference]] that asserts Loyola 2L is actually a graduate of Loyola Law School. |
|||
:::If you can do this to the point where you can write a good article to resurrect your article [[Loyola 2L]], you should be able to get support from other editors. OTOH, it seems that you are more concerned with Loyola 2L's views than Loyola 2L itself; if that is the case, perhaps you should give this up and instead write a ''well-sourced'' criticism section for the article. If you do decide to go this route, be sure to follow [[WP:V]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:RS]], and related policies or you will likely be reverted again. |
|||
:::Also FYI, see [[WP:GOOGLE]]. 3000 results isn't that many for someone who communicates publicly via the Internet; I get 1100 when looking up my real name (which doesn't count anything referencing me by pseudonym) and I haven't done anything near worthy of a Wikipedia article. Also, the first page of results seems to be full of posts by and replies to Loyola 2L rather than the critical commentary you imply. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:13, 9 June 2007
![]() | California Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | Architecture Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Request for Wiki third-opinion
For "Loyola2L" dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Summary of objections to "Loyola2L" manipulation of content, by EditorEsquire
The Wiki page for any educational institution is supposed to contain verifiable and unbiased information. It is not meant to be used as a platform to denigrate a school. The same goes for any Wiki page. Yet one editor has sought to add "Loyola2L" to the "Notable alumni" section of Loyola Law School.
- Loyola 2L is a noteworthy legal blogger. If you google "Loyola 2L" you will find thousands of pages by or about Loyola 2L. I want to note that the edit war over Loyola 2L is waged by three IPs in favor of adding Loyola 2L vs. one IP in favor of deleting it. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Loyola 2L does not "denigrate" or "abuse" Loyola. Loyola 2L is apparently a blogger name used by a group of Loyola Law school students, who use the internet to inform others of the difficulties they are having finding a job. I appreciate their desire to honestly share their experiences and I don't see any way to square that with the characterizations like "denigrate" or "abuse." --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Loyola2L is apparently a username belonging to one or more people who hold themselves out as having some affiliation with the school (an assertion which is completely unverifiable), and with this apparent sock puppet seek to denigrate the school. Now, a Wiki editor is trying to use Wiki as another platform to spread these biased missives -- under the cover of saying that because any anonymous person can claim to be a student of the school and then defame it for their own motives (most notably, to elevate competing law schools),
- I don't know if you work for Loyola Law School, but Wikipedia is not a tool by which you can elevate your school over others. Wikipedia is here to present complete information. If graduates of your law school indeed have such poor career prospects, that a group of bloggers would post literally thousands of messages bemoaning their financial difficulties, then it is noteworthy information. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki must also be a forum in which to do so. That assertion fails several of Wiki's cornerstone policies. Wiki is not -- and never was intended to be -- a forum for abuse.
- By your definition anyone who writes about the country's poor economy abuses the country. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) This fails Wiki's non-bias policy. The "Loyola2L" posts alleging "poor" career prospects are opionated bias. Career prospects are already incorporated within the US News rankings, which is prominently displayed and linked on the page. Loyola2L-related posts anywhere -- including Wikipedia -- are meant solely to denigrate the school.
- How are you in a position to judge the honesty of Loyola 2L's posts? Loyola 2L are a group of actual Loyola students struggling to find jobs. You, based on your IP, are in Virginia. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(2) For these reasons, the post also fails the accuracy policy. First, the relative employment rates reported by US News show that the assertion of "poor" career prospects is factually wrong.
- This is just a lie, and I'm troubled by your lack of respect for the truth. I just researched Loyola's US News statistics and they show, among other things, a 40% unemployment rate at graduation. In comparison, UCLA's unemployment rate at graduation is just 3%. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Second, Loyola2L by definition cannot be an alumni because he/she cannot be verified as such, and the username itself is made to suggest a current student. But again, any number of different people could register this username on any number of blogs -- regardless of who they are or what their affiliation, if any, is with the school.
- I seriously doubt anyone would pretend to be a Loyola Law School student, and post thousands of messages bemoaning the market value of the degree, solely as a game. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(3) This is also not noteworthy. Just because I post a blog somewhere does not elevate it to the level of being worthy of putting onto a Wiki page.
- This is another lie. Loyola 2L is a noteworthy legal blogger as described above. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(4) This posting squarely violates Wiki's verifiability policy. No one can ever verify whether Loyola2L is or ever was a student -- let alone a single person or instead multiple people using the same username -- or a sock puppet. The fact remains that the identify of the people under this username can never be determined as fact and is completely unverifiable. Moreover, the law school market in Los Angeles is very competitive. Loyola2L could very well be affiliated one of the several competiting law schools, seeking to denigrate the school for his/her/their own motives, and now expanding that campaign onto Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorEsquire (talk • contribs) 10:22-10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.29.214 (talk • contribs) 10:29-10:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is moot because the article doesn't purport to verify L2L's statements. The article only reports L2L's existence as a noteworthy blogger. Regarding your redundant assertions, see above. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Response
Dear administrators,
Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers.
These bloggers are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on.
Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. They were concerned that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 .
Unfortunately, EditorEsquire presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L entry and the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restore these entries and wait for the discussion to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval. --Updatethis12 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
History of "Loyola2L" dispute (as of 9 June 2007 5:30 am Eastern Time
(cur) (last) 09:22, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,012 bytes) (I am submitting to dispute resolution. I made a majority of this content, and am not going to sit by and watch you hijack it to denigrate the school for your own motives)
(cur) (last) 09:20, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,011 bytes)
(cur) (last) 06:33, 9 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,216 bytes) (My interest is an informative article. I edited the entry to make clear we don't support the blogger's views. You've now had three different IPs add the L2L reference. Please stop deleting it.)
(cur) (last) 01:50, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,011 bytes) ((1) There is no way to identify if this blogger attended the school, and thus is unverifiable; (2) This is clearly meant to denigrate the school and is biased. Identify your interest in this post.)
(cur) (last) 00:15, 7 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,216 bytes) (I added "supposedly" to 70.162.147.66's edit, so the article doesn't endorse L2L's views. However, L2L is a known blogger and supposed Loyola alum. Why not unbiasedly report his/her existence)
(cur) (last) 23:08, 4 June 2007 70.162.147.66 (Talk) (22,205 bytes) (→Notable alumni)
(cur) (last) 23:32, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,189 bytes) (I did not suggest you were that bogger. His blogs and reference here is biased. If you object, submit it to Wiki resolution. I will register as a username to object n that case.)
(cur) (last) 14:00, 1 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,188 bytes) (First of all, I am not Loyola 2L. Second, can you please not start a huge fight over this? Loyola 2L is well known legal blogger and I think it's biased to exclude the reference. Pls add it somewhere.)
(cur) (last) 08:21, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,011 bytes) (Also, the user is not only abusing the bias policy to denigrate a school, but moreover attempted to self-make himself/herself as notewothy (in part by this page))
(cur) (last) 08:18, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,010 bytes) (I appreciate your comment. The content violates the non-bias policy, this is not the function of a "notable" alumni section, and the post refers to an unidentified pseudonyn who is not even an alumni)
(cur) (last) 03:52, 1 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,186 bytes) (→Notable alumni - I think Loyola 2L is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. I'm not saying we should present his/her views as fact, but perhaps just mention him somewhere?)
(cur) (last) 02:07, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,010 bytes) (Loyola2L is an unidentified purported alumni posting subjective and slanted content contrary to Wiki policies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorEsquire (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion
I'm going to reset the third opinions. Two editors, anomie and Adrian M.H. provided an opinion before listening to both sides. This is in violation of Wikipedia rules described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly." Anomie and Adrian M.H. please kindly recuse yourselves from this dispute. --Updatethis12 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)