Jump to content

Talk:University of the People

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruby2021 (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 30 August 2021 (→‎Pandemics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Total cost for different degree

Their degree cost:

Computer Science – B.S. Degree $4,060

Business Administration – A.S. Degree $2,060

Business Administration – B.S. Degree $4,060

Computer Science – A.S. Degree $2,060

Health Science – Community and Public Health Track – A.S. Degree $2,060

If you can add this information to the article. People may get the impression that the degree cost few hundreds of dollars, but it is more like a few thousands of dollars.

it' normal, this article is an ADVERTISEMENT !!!!

Here we go again, new spam

A few years ago a couple of UoPeople.edu spammers insisted on adding https://webometrics.info to the article, claiming that UoPeople.edu was the XXXXth best "school" in the world. They didn't even understand that XXXX was a very low score; actually, it was the worst, as confirmed by email by Webometrics' author. But history repeats itself, and now we have another brand-new account that wants to add the rankings published by the commercial website https://www.niche.com which claim to be "better than the rest" (wow) and to be based on "over 180,000 college reviews from real (?) students—more college reviews than any other place on the internet. This gives a uniquely authentic and credible view into what students really think about their college.": sure, too bad anyone can write anything. On top of that, schools can pay to get a "better description": is this what "students really think about their college"? At the same time, the rankings claim to "only rely on the most trustworthy sources like the U.S. Department of Education", but what does the U.S. Department of Education have to do with the aforementioned 180,000 reviews? In short, pure spam. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, in this commercial website, University of the People ("verified/claimed page") claims to have 1,096 + 3,328 = 4,424 students, not 75,000! Where is the truth? If the page on niche.com is right, UoPeople.edu is lying; if UoPeople.edu is right, the page on niche.com is lying. It can be one or the other, but it can't be both. Therefore, if UoPeople.edu spammers now want to use niche.com (that has no scientific/academic credibility) as a source, the alleged number of students mentioned in this article should be changed from 75,390 to 4,424. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you get "xyz" and the lowest score is "xyz", you got the worst score: elementary concept. If you play a tennis match, and you lose 6-0 6-0 6-0, you lost the match: it's ridiculous if you claim that "you finished second". But UoPeople spammers, after adding this ranking to the article, want to delete this piece of information because they didn't realize that talking about (real) rankings was counterproductive. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 15:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Althought

@Black Kite: with regard to recent changes [1]. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch it reads that words such as "althought" should be avoided. If you consider that my changes are not appropriate, maybe you can give it a better text. Thanks for your time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself uses the word "although": "a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when [etc.]". It doesn't say it's forbidden. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WASC unaccredited

Last year, a spammer came to this article to write that "University of the People is eligible for WASC accreditation". This statement, or maybe we should say "this ad", is ambiguous and potentially deceptive, because the truth is UoPeople.edu is WASC unaccredited. When it becomes accredited, this piece of information can be added. Anyway, the ad was removed (not by me). Today, another spammer (or maybe the same, go figure) basically rewrote the same thing. Why? Nobody cares if a website is "potentially accredited", "eligible for" yadda yadda yadda, that's just fluff. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn’t seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. As it stands much of the article is on the bleeding edge of OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Report

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I wanted to let everyone know that I reported the article for POV issues. Hopefully other experienced editors can help bring some sanity to this article. I will not be involved though because I'm going back to gymnastics. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics? LOL. You only promoted "University of the People" in Simone Biles' article. Brand-new SPA. Pathetic. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What issues do you wish addressed?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be a little bit more welcoming of newcomer, Wp:npa applies to us as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UoPeople receives WASC Candidacy status

https://www.wscuc.org/institutions/university-people

As this piece of information is crucial for potential students and people interested in UoPeople I will be adding it to the article.

Huge news for UoPeople Weatherextremes (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?, they are only a candiate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for any school candidacy to become a regionally accredited institution showcases a high level of academic achievements.

Why should we bury it?

Weatherextremes (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Surely it is being accredited that does, not asking for it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it showcases the bare minimum of academic achievements, I don’t see a need to mention mere candidacy. Can you explain why you think its crucial? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were accredited, it should be added. The fact that "it could become accredited in the future" is irrelevant instead, not to say misleading, because it is unaccredited at the moment. Usual spam. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link here [2] reads The institution has demonstrated that it meets all, or nearly all of the Standards of Accreditation at a minimum level and has a clear plan in place to meet the Standards at a substantial level of compliance for accreditation. Candidacy is limited to four years and is granted only when an institution can demonstrate that it is likely to become accredited during the four-year period

So when people visit the article after the 11 year long smear campaign from Giuseppe Macario they will be relieved to know that they were not scammed and that this is a credible institution. I am pretty sure a sizable amount of visitors are coming to read the article wondering if the fake news disseminated by Macario throughout the years have any bearing. Weatherextremes (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it is exactly as I said it was, we most certainly are not talking about a high level of academic achievement. Also who the heck is Giuseppe Macario? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this stage I will invoke wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However it is an institution that is likely to receive accreditation according to the above statement. I notice that the WASC candidacy status is mentioned in the history section but I believe it should also be mentioned in the accreditation section. Also from what I have read so far, Macario is an Italian internet troll, who was rejected for an academic position at UoPeople and from then on he created a junk blog specifically aiming at defaming UoPeople. It was the junk source we had discussed in the past and we had decided against using it as a source for the article Weatherextremes (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who Macario is or what he does is of no interest or concern to us. As he has been rejected as a source he is not relevant to this discussion. When (And if) they are accredited, fine. Until then this is trivial, as it is not even the bare minimum to be called accredited.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think his actions against UoPeople are relevant as to why it is important to have this piece of information in the accreditation section. I believe a lot of people have bought his fake news on UoPeople thus clearly indicating in the accreditation section the candidacy status I believe is exactly the opposite of trivial for these visitors.Weatherextremes (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would need RS saying it is fake. If it is important RS would have noticed it, have they? Also until they are accredited, it tells us nothing, they could fall at the last hurdle.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it is clear there is no consensus for inclusion of this it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is already not included in the accreditation section. Here some links I found on the italian troll

(Redacted)

Weatherextremes (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Weatherextremes: Stop. This is harassment and doxing. Its so against WP:BLP and WP:TALK I don’t even know how to begin. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Material

The enrollment count should be replaced with something from a secondary source.

The IRS sources should be removed and the material supported by them.

Most of the History section is promotional and needs to be removed.

The part about California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education should be removed.

Webometrics should be supplemented by the Niche source added before. EffortlessDisco (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

niche.com is a commercial website without any scientific credibility, where anyone can pay to get their "reputation" boosted. See #Here we go again, new spam. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IRS sources are clearly WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH and should go. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, from the guidelines: "1. primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also 3 "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.", that is what it is doing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WASC Report on UoPeople

There are two documents on UoPeople's Candidacy from WASC that can be used as RS sources for the article. Both documents can be found here:[3] under Commision actions.

Some worthwhile data we can use for the article from the Team Report:

  • From page 33: 1,068 personnel represented by 800 volunteer/honoraria faculty, 198 contractors, 59 compensated staff, and 11 volunteer staff of whom 9 are deans, vice presidents, and the president

This would also address the claim that there are no academics in UoPeople.

Also :

  • From page 26: In 2020, UoPeople faculty research and professional development included 95 publications, 100 presentations, and 126 opportunities to develop educational materials

Weatherextremes (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Err, which of those two quotes says "academics"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word faculty makes it clear. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not, please read wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we can leave it verbatim then. Still the point gets across that UoPeople has academics who teach Weatherextremes (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we leave what verbatum?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we can use the same words without saying academics since you object on that.

Also from page 24 we can get extra info on the faculty members: It has a diverse personnel base given the list of countries from which faculty originated, the various interviews the team conducted with individuals from around the globe Weatherextremes (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what you think this adds, and no we can't use it verbatim, as there may be copyright concerns. As you seemed to want it to address an issue it does not in fact address what is your new reason for wanting to use it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we have been hearing (mostly from Modulato) that UoPeople does not have any academics. We can use the WASC Teams report as a RS for that and we can decide how we will word it. I don't see how there maybe copyright concerns. I mean the report is publicly provided in the WASC link. Weatherextremes (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say they employ academics, so does not address what you want to address, so we can't use it for that reason. As to copyright, just because it is publically available does not mean it's not copyright.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says there are faculty members and various personnel. We can use the numbers also to get the point across since the WASC report seems RS. I do not understand what is your objection exactly? Weatherextremes (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? What point? that they employ people? Also one of the sources is very much a primary source with a clear COI (it's their letter). The other source does not say what you want it to say, it does not undermine or undo the credibility of the claim they do not employ academics (which I am hot even sure our article claims). So your reasons for wanting to use (either of them) are not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can use the numbers from the WASC Teams report to fill in various entries of a standard Infobox University Weatherextremes (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that is a better reason. OK I can see no reason why we can't say something like "Administrative staff 1,068 personnel".Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could also say Academic staff 800 Weatherextremes (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No we cannot, as it does not say that, it does not say Academic staff. In fact, the only 800 number is "volunteer/honoraria faculty", not academic, unpaid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, it would be wp:or and not wp:v if we said Administrative staff when it says personnel. Also please stop writing in my talkpage. It is tiresome. I am sure we can work to find a way to include the numbers from the WASC report in the infobox Weatherextremes (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going with what we already have, in the infobox (which is sourced by the way), as we do not know who are what these staff do. But if "Personnel 1,068" makes you happy fine let's say that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of which 800 we can say are volunteer faculty in the infobox. Which even that is a stretch since it is common knowledge that faculty refers to academic staff when we discuss about Universities. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What use is it? So they have people who work for nothing, and? Its time for me to bail out and let others chip in, you have failed to make your case to me at least. Maybe others might be more convicned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They don't work for nothing. Faculty at UoPeople receive a honorarium, they are called volunteers for legal reasons. According to the WASC Teams report in page 10 it is specified that they receive 600 dollars per course and that it will increase to over 1600 dollars per course by 2023. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that "Faculty at UoPeople receive a honorarium, they are called volunteers for legal reasons.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.uopeople.edu/volunteer/ doesn't say that the alleged volunteers should be paid. Also, from the Oxford English dictionary: "volunteer: a person who does a job without being paid for it." https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/volunteer_1 If they are being paid, UoPeople.edu misleadingly uses the word "volunteer". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read it in Reddit ages ago. Any input on the WASC Team report as a RS source? It can easily replace the crappy IRS report Weatherextremes (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you can't claim the US Government is "crap". See https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/committed-to-open-government —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, we can’t base anything on shit you read on "Reddit ages ago.” I’m with Slatersteven on this one, they have been more than reasonable with you and you need to listen. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, fine its not even important if they are called volunteers for legal reasons . My argument is that we need to use the WASC Teams report as a RS. For some reason you are silent on that. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a RS for what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Faculty/Staff numbers for instance Weatherextremes (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we just going to repeat the discussion you had with Slatersteven? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you prefer a primary source such as the IRC report over a better source to describe the University's staff in the infobox? You are aware that the IRS source is wp:or and wp:synth? Weatherextremes (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an odd comment to make given that its in the exact same category of sources as the WASC Team report which you want to use so any OR and SYNTH issues would remain unaddressed... In an ideal world we wouldn't be using either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Talking about WASC in this article is misleading. UoPeople.edu is not accredited by WASC, at least now. Also, UoPeople.edu already claims to be "fully accredited" (a phrase that may be deceptive, but that's another story). Assuming that's true, why should it be seeking accreditation? It's already "fully accredited", isn't it?
  2. Where are all these "academics" that published scientific papers on international journals stating that they work at UoPeople.edu's Department of [put any subject here]? According to Google Scholar, the only person is Shai Reshef, who is not a "scholar" and happens to be the owner promoting his own website and business model (how ridiculous): https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22university+of+the+people%22 —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be deceptive if it said they have full regional accreditation. Now they have a full national accreditation, so i doubt fully accredited is misleading Weatherextremes (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Full" means full, period. They don't say "fully nationally accredited" (which doesn't mean anything, by the way). They state "it's fully accredited", which is misleading as usual because if it were "fully accredited" they wouldn't be seeking accreditation. Plain and simple. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last but not least, the alleged MBA is basically unaccredited because no business accrediting body recognize it as an "MBA", so the statement "it's fully accredited" is demonstrably false and deceptive. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 990 and Administrative Staff

Hi, my name is Lindsay and I’m an employee of UoPeople. In the interest of providing the most accurate information for the page, I wanted to let you know that our 2019 IRS 990 form is now available here: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/264078735_202008_990_2021041417946967.pdf

As you’ll see, our administrative staff are 18 U.S. employees (page 1, line 5). There are an additional 38 employees in the middle east and north Africa (page 27, line 3). I hope this information helps the community create the most up-to-date resource possible. Thank you all for your work and attention to our page! Lindsay.UoPeople (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will be updated soon. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 04:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I updated the staff (18+38=56). However, I didn't update the location to "Middle East" because it's the nth apparent attempt to hide "Israel" (documented in all the previous forms). It's like saying "I live on planet earth": yes, but where? "Earth" or "Middle East" is a bit too vague. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the above that claims over 1,000 staff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is the only reliable source is the IRS, which is why plenty of UoPeople reps hate it and want to remove it. In theory they could make false statements there too, but it would be a criminal offence. On the other hand, anywhere else, they can claim whatever they want: it is no accident that allegedly "reliable" sources such as the BBC, the Guardian etc. claim it to be "the university with no fees" or "the college that issues free degrees" on the basis of misleading/deceiving press releases. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems they are whitewashing their public records (lest they appear on Wikipedia): for example, they deleted the sentence "the organization may also use for-profit subsidiaries abroad" — which doesn't mean they don't have for-profit subsidiaries anymore. They just deleted the sentence, that's it. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers should update to what the form now says in conjunction with the WASC report. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "over 1000 employees" is just what UoPeople.edu claimed there. If it were true, UoPeople woud have communicated the same number to the US government. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 01:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From page 33 of the WASC report: 1,068 personnel represented by 800 volunteer/honoraria faculty, 198 contractors, 59 compensated staff, and 11 volunteer staff of whom 9 are deans, vice presidents, and the president
So yeah they report correctly in the WASC report 59 paid staff (I guess they hired 3 more paid staff from the time of the IRS report). The rest are volunteers Weatherextremes (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are based on what UoPeople.edu claimed there: they are not verified by WASC or by anybody else. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 02:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit more digging and the WASC Team Report mentions, "The UoPeople's subsidiary organization, the University of the People Education, which provides operational services to the UoPeople, has recently changed from a for-profit entity to a public benefit company" (p. 16-17).

The source already used in the article calls it "מטרות ציבוריות בלבד" which translates to public purposes only by Google.

https://www.checkid.co.il/company/יוניברסיטי-אוף-דה-פיפל-אדיוקיישן-בע~מ-(חל~צ)-514228139 The Wikipedia article in Hebrew on this type of company.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/חברה_לתועלת_הציבור There is also an English source from an Israeli law firm about such corporations.

https://lawoffice.org.il/en/registering-a-public-benefit-company/ It states, "In contrast, if a company is registered for public benefit, then it obviously must not act to bring profit to the founders and shareholders."

So, the IRS document only mentions University of the People Education Ltd. Is there any evidence of another subsidiary? Weatherextremes (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the IRS mentions "University of the People Education Ltd." (please note the "Ltd.") just because this is what University of the People declared in the US, and not because some people are inventing theories against UoPeople.edu. That being said, a private limited company is not a non-profit organization, by definition. What is more, it is still unclear why an organization, which claims to have nothing to do with Israel, relies on a company located in Tel Aviv. The owner's claim that this private limited company does not "bring profit to the founders and shareholders" is just an uncorroborated claim: he could have showed the financial statements, or at least the balance sheet, but he didn't. Or better yet, he could have eliminated the company located in Israel (or "in the Middle East", according to the latest update). —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Location Links

Hi Everyone--Lindsay from UoPeople again. It's great to see so many people invested in the content on this page. However, we're a bit confused by the new lede, which says we're a "private non-profit, distance education university with links to Pasadena, USA and Tel Aviv, Israel." I can't find another example of a University being described as having "links" to cities (including other 100% online schools like Capella). Rather it seems standard to reference the headquarters--which in our case, is Pasadena, CA. Can someone help me understand how this inclusion is relevant and unbiased? Every document and reference--from the IRS forms, to the WASC report, to news coverage, notes that we are based in Pasadena. Thanks very much. Lindsay.UoPeople (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"News coverage", which is based on misleading press releases, is often incorrect, not to say deceptive: for example, the Guardian claims this university to have "no fees", which is blatantly false, and the list is much longer. That being said, claiming that "it is headquartered in Pasadena CA" is misleading too, because there are no headquarters in Pasadena. Besides, your comparison with "other 100% online schools like Capella" (or WGU) doesn't hold, because they do have real headquarters. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lindsay. We must understand history to understand the present.
There was once a website named Presto News. This website was a fake news website written in English and Italian by a single author. The articles focused on the specific interests of the website owner, and University of the People was one of those interests.
The website no longer exists, but we have archives through the website Archive.today.
The one most relevant to this article is the English story about UoPeople.
This article was actually used as a source in the UoPeople article at one time.
An IP editor, from Italy, included the source on 21 June 2017 to support the claim, "The school has no campus or offices, and uses a PO box in California in order to qualify as American institution."
The source URL was updated a little later by another editor, Adrin10, on 29 October 2017.
The only change to the URL was the domain name. The filename remained the same. While the Archive.today site does not have this URL archived, there is a copy of the article on a Turkish web forum.
The fourth post in that thread references the Evidence Based Review website, and the sixth post includes the full article. If you take time to compare the topics covered and language used by the PN and EBR articles, you will find they are very, very similar. A reasonable conclusion is that they were written by the same person.
This connection becomes even more interesting when a new website appeared on July 1, 2021.
The domain had been registered just the day before. When I inquired as to how it was discovered so quickly, the person who included said that it used to exist as another website. Rather telling, no?
I took the effort to compare the language of the new website with language from the EBR article. It's an easy match.
That analysis also includes one of the topics covered and language used by the editor who introduced the site. Again, it's an easy match.
The person behind Presto News, Evidence Based Review, and UoPeople Review are the same person. The person is actively antagonistic against the university and active in editing its Wikipedia page and surrounding pages. The person wants to brand UoPeople as an "Israeli diploma mill" and one approach is to reduce its connection to the United States.
He's been pushing the location issue since at least 2017, but he's been editing the UoPeople since much further back in 2015.
Fact is, this is a case of long-term abuse and its time for other editors to wake up to it.
Oh, and in case anyone wants more evidence...
Some past promotional edits....
Some past media uploads...
Some past articles which were AfD'ed...
There is a mountain of evidence for LTA well beyond the UoPeople article. This could literally touch hundreds of articles xwiki, but this is the end of my road. I've done enough work to get others started. Arr, mateys! I be shovin' off. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your allegations were refuted by the "sockpuppet investigation" (against me) requested by you and/or other UoPeope.edu SPAs a few months ago, which showed that the people you mention, who I don't know, had and have completely different IP addresses. This is the only technical proof; everything else is a lot of nonsense and you should quit telling the same stories over and over again. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 23:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Webometrics ratings

It is patently WP:SYNTH to state that this institution is not on the list. I'm sure we could find lots of lists that it's not on. Insisting on it's inclusion has the appearance of POV-pushing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage lists two rankings and calls the latter "transparent ranking". Also, the former ranking recommends "see[ing] Transparent Ranking for additional info"; however, the organization is not on the list. But this is not "original synthesis" or "POV pushing": it is just what those webpages say, unless you deem the pages POV. That being said, in my opinion the whole section could be removed, considering that the presence of "University of the people" in these rankings or webpages is completely irrelevant. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 23:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the section, and agree that it's not very relevant for this kind of institution. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.S Department of Education says UoPeople is Preaccredited by WASC

So what do you make of this? [4]. Should we edit the article to reflect UoPeople is preaccredited by WASC? Weatherextremes (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemics

I have thought that because global warming affects the world and because the current pandemics have the cases in many parts of it, they are probably related. I have written that for some posts of or a message to US President Joe Biden and the UN on Facebook in the past. However, I did not know if some people got interested in my idea as I received no replies from them.

I wanted to write my idea of covering the faces to prevent infections. It is to create a helmet-like equipment with a small air purifier inside it. In this way, I think that the infections in many cases could be avoided. Indoors, we could have the air purifiers. Outdoors, we could use the helmet-like equipment. I wrote about this equipment to the US Embassy in Tokyo through Facebook many months ago, but no one seems interested in it. It might not be useful, but I have thought that it would save people.

I heard that the patients who are and will be infected with the serious diseases might recover. I heard that a person’s power of resistance is dramatically increased with a shot of Vitamin C, and so it might be possible to save the lives of the people who are and will be infected with them. Ruby2021 (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_the_People&oldid=1041401038"