Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism

Old comment

Please leave the box at the top. We are striving to mark all proposed policies in a uniform way so that there is no confusion as to their status. Thanks, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Examples

Re: University of Texas at Austin. Don't you think including specific examples of academic boosterism might be helpful? I had already begun discussing that particular example on its talk page, but I thought it might be helpful for others viewing THIS article to see a good example of what the article is talking about. H2O 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is a general guideline, and we should avoid carrying disputes about specific articles out of their Talk pages by linking them here. (It wouldn't be a good idea to link even to specific article revisions, which is a better way to go than plain wikilinks when a particular wording is in question, since Wikipedia articles are always changing). I think that examples of boosterish wording, if added to this guideline, should be quoted without the name of the institution whose article they come from. A collection of examples might be useful, but only without the invitation to bring specific article-content disputes to this page. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - I would be happy to post some examples of what I consider boosterism and leave out the names of the alleged offenders. I do think that this might be helpful and a way to subject these examples to the review of some disinterested third parties. H2O 00:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you pull out the specific phrases that are in your judgment examples of boosterism? I think we should be looking for examples like the ones at Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, for instance: brief and specific bits of language that should wave red flags to readers once they've been made aware of the issue. From your example, the phrases that really stick out to me, that I think deserve to be highlighted as possible boosterism, are:

• "No public or private university in [the region] can match the breadth and quality of the university's research endeavors" -- uses undefined and disputable terms "breadth and quality" to create a vague impression of excellence
• "[the university] is consistently ranked as the best public university in the state and as one of the best public universities in the nation" -- ranked by whom? and how consistently? surely not every organization ranking universities agrees on this.

-- Rbellin|Talk 04:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes - feel free to tweak as you think necessary - I will add other examples from other schools as I come across them. H2O 17:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why academia?

The page notes that academic boosting is a common form found on Wikipedia. Is this because WP is written by students? Pcb21| Pete 07:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a POV by people on a crusade against academic boosterism. Lots of "boosting" of all kinds is on Wikipedia. I haven't found the academic kind particularly unique or outstanding. --C S (Talk) 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have found academic boosterism outstanding. The entire university articles category is defined by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.180 (talk • contribs)

Again, I think you'll find that everyone is always "boosting" one thing or other. University articles are no different. The fact that there is a page on "avoid academic boosterism" has more to do with many university article editors ending up in conflict with other like-minded editors, rather than the topic itself somehow being more prone to promotion. Probably the reason you feel this way is because you came into conflict about the promotion of some university or other. In other words, the reason we don't have an "avoid Pokemon boosterism" or "avoid science boosterism" guideline has more to do with the fact that those forms of boosterism are from more cohesive groups that don't generally squabble with each other. On the other hand, one can see one school's "boosters" getting in a fight with a rival school's "boosters". Thus this guideline. --C S (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely due to the fact that many (likely the majority) of Wikipedia editors are in college, aspire to be in college, or have already graduate from college. I reach this conclusion simply by the fact that the Wikipedia editors are online and comfortable using relatively advanced Internet technology (online collaborative editing with strangers is not a common activity for most people). Simply put, most Wikipedia editors are on the side of Digital Divide populated largely by the more affluent and privileged. This is speculative but I also suspect this also has a strong effect on the tone and content of Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Terms such as "elite" and "highly selective" are precisely those used, understood, and accepted in academia as criteria for defining excellence, and identifying the institutions which meet those criteria. If the objection to their use on Wikipedia is that they're "vague" or easily misunderstood, then a greater attempt should be made by the community to define them more precisely for a non-academic audience. I'll be happy to contribute to that effort. But the policy as it currently exists seeks to avoid both vagueness and burying the reader in statistics. Okay. If I say that I graduated from an elite, highly selective liberal arts college, I will be accused of being vague and engaging in academic boosterism, but if I say that my alma mater has ranked in the top ten in the US News ratings for every year since 19-whatever, I will be accused of burying the reader in statistics. Either we accept reputational words like "elite" at face value, or we must accept the method by which such statements are documented. As it is, it seems to be a no-win situation for anyone seeking to discuss a college or university's academic reputation as part of its Wikipedia page. And academic reputation is one of the most important pieces of information that such an article should convey. But arbitrarily excising mention of any such praise as POV, and condemning factually accurate statements about the existence of an institution's reputation as "academic boosterism" removes important, accurate information from an institution's article. JTRH 16:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with burying the reader in statistics (as long as those statistics are from reputable sources). The term "elite" is not objective. The same is true for "highly selective." Also, reputations are held in the mind of certain people. To avoid "burying the reader in statistics" and using vague terms like "elite," why not quote a reputable source that calls a given school "elite"? LaszloWalrus 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a generally accepted definition of "selectivity." It has to do with the percentage of applicants who are accepted (lower = more selective), and the percentage of those accepted who choose to enroll (higher = more selective). A "highly selective" school is one which combines these two: it accepts a relatively small percentage of its applicants, but is the first choice of most of those who are accepted, so that's where they choose to attend. So there is an objective (and verifiable) measure of selectivity at least in terms of comparisons among schools, and a statement such as "Harvard is more selective than the University of XYZ" is based on objective criteria. If it's possible to be "more selective," then it's possible to be "highly selective." The acceptance/attendance data for a given school are usually publicly reported; it's in the US News rankings, at least for the schools that continue to participate in them. And I'm sure I can find documentation of the definition, but rather than reporting acceptance/attendance data on every school's page, perhaps the use of the word "selective" in a school's article, as shorthand for the above, should be linked to a page explaining the specific meaning of the term as it's being presented?

"Reputation," on the other hand, is inherently subjective (but important), and much of it is word of mouth within academic communities. There are objective criteria for measuring it, e.g., an undergraduate college develops a "reputation" as a particularly "good" school if a large percentage of its alumni go on to earn Ph.D.'s. But most of a school's "reputation" is generally derived from asking people (whose authority on the subject is generally accepted) what they think of a particular school. You can't get much more POV than that. Does that mean a discussion of a school's "reputation" should be excluded from Wikipedia because it's the product of subjective opinions? I don't think it's POV to make a factual, verifiable statement that a school has a given reputation. ("Duke is a good school" is not the same statement as "Duke has a reputation for academic excellence.") The statement that Duke has a reputation for academic excellence is completely objective, NPOV, and accurate.

I raise these issues because LaszloWalrus and I had a conversation a few weeks ago about the Haverford College page (my alma mater), when he deleted something which, in his view, contained academic boosterism (and I see that he's made the same sorts of edits to several college and university pages, which is why I invited him to this discussion). He referred me to the definition of AB on the main page connected to this talk page. As a result, I wrote a sentence for the Haverford article containing links to the US News rankings for 2006 and 2007 in an attempt to to offer pieces of objective, verifiable evidence of the school's academic quality. Not long afterward, someone removed the statement and accompanying links as "unnecessary." That's why I made the statement about the appearance of a no-win situation. JTRH 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I would suggest sticking to the definition of selectivity given by the 2005 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Undergraduate profile. I offer that suggestion as the Carnegie Foundation is much more uncontroversial than others (USN&WR) that offer their own definitions.

I'll look into the Haveford article and, if so moved, make a comment or two there. Even if one disregards their inherent problems and surrounding controversy, it seems that I've seen the USN&WR rankings cited poorly and incorrectly more often than they are cited correctly in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, I would be extraordinarily pleased if there were a movement to include the 2005 Carnegie classifications in every article about US institutions of higher education (that are classified by Carnegie; unaccredited institutions would be the largest group left out). The 2005 classifications are multi-faceted, informative, and interesting. They express and define succinctly and from a very reliable source many characteristics that editors struggle to express and define on their own (witness the above discussion of selectivity as a prime example). --ElKevbo 21:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If others are objecting to the inclusion of verifiable and notable statistics in favor of vague, ill-defined, and likely POV terms like "elite", please direct me to those conversations as I completely disagree and believe that our policies support my assertions and arguments. I reject your assertion that such terms are "understood and accepted in academia" and I can cite several recent developments surrounding rankings to support my assertion if you would like (the Annapolis Group's moves to their own assessment/rankings, the NSSE/USA Today partnership, etc.).

If others categorize particular institutions as "elite" or "highly selective" then we can certainly cite those sources but we must not make such judgements ourselves. However, there is certainly room for discussion and each case should be considered separately. I have noticed a tendency to place undue weight on favorable rankings or statistics and omission or downplaying of unfavorable rankings or statistics and that clearly shouldn't be done for POV reasons. --ElKevbo 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking no position on the US News rankings vs. anyone else's, I'm offering US News as an example because they're the rankings with which I'm most familiar. But if I'm interpreting the Academic Boosterism policy correctly, terms such as "elite" are supposed to be avoided even if one is reporting (and documenting) that it's the opinion of several external sources that the University of XYZ is an "elite" institution. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for hearing me out. JTRH 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope (and it is my policy) that we would evaluate each situation on its own merits. I'm sure that you can understand the general caution we all practice since it's relatively easy to find someone somewhere who has written or said nice things about any institution. It's probably better to simply avoid the issue altogether to avoid our own inherent POV and biases. --ElKevbo 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and well said. My concern is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus in the community; how might we bring this to the attention of a larger number of Wikipedians who might be interested in this discussion? JTRH 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities might be a good place to start. --ElKevbo 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. JTRH 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The first example

is as follows:

... is consistently ranked as the best public university in the state and as one of the best public universities in the nation. (2nd line in the intro of a well known state university)

I don't really see how this is an example of boosterism. Boosterism is the statement of unverifiable (nebulous) and POV claims, like "best school in California" or "at the forefront of American universities." They aren't provable or disprovable; they're just characterizations, and as they serve to promote a positive impression of the subject, they're not NPOV.

This example, on the other hand, states a very concrete fact that can be verified. If the citation is a New York Times article saying "The University of Podunk regularly places in the top five of U.S. News & World Report's rankings of public universities," or if multiple citations show that the university is highly placed by multiple rankers, how can this be a violation of NPOV or verifiability?

In short, I think this example should be removed. Kane5187 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's responded, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it with something else. Kane5187 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reworked

I reworked the lead, changed some stuff with regards to ranking to reflect consensus by editors and the state of most articles, and added a few examples. I likewise employed the standard nutshell and description boxes in the header to standardize it with other guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I would, however, like to see some justification and discussion of this rewrite of the first paragraph. Some of the deletions and changes there seem a little ill-advised and oversimplified to me, particularly the removal of the bit about academia not being a competition. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the line about academic not being a competition is a bit condescending or inaccurate - I don't think competition is what motivates people to include the information, it's more of a superiority complex. Rather than chastising an editor for a non-existent motivation, I thought that we should include examples of areas in which he could direct his efforts instead of "boostering". Madcoverboy (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Highly selective

I want to disagree with Madcoverboy's addition of the term "highly selective" as an example of boosterism. The selectivity of a university is a verifible third-party assessment, frequently used in college guides, including the US News College Rankings. I think that, if properly cited, the selectivity rating is a perfectly valid fact to include. In fact, I'm not sure that something qualifies as boosterism simply because it reflects positively on a schools (as many of Madcoverboy's additions seem to be). JEB90 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Amherst College) So being highly selective is the MOST important thing to know about the university? I mean before knowing it is a liberal arts college, where it is, how big it is, or what people do there, we have to know it's hard to get into? Basically what you're trying to say falls into two versions: either "Amhert College has a 15% acceptance rate and is a liberal arts college in Amherst, Massachusetts" or "Amherst College is liberal arts college that lots of people try to get into and is located in Amherst, Massachusetts." Which is it? I'm not gonna make a point, but the reference quotes the acceptance rate which is what should just simply be stated, so go ahead and state it like that — hopefully one recognizes the tackiness then. WP:BOOSTER reflects the consensus and fact that every Ivy League institution, Stanford, MIT, UChicago, and institutions of similarly well-recognized preeminence don't assert their "selectivity" in the first sentence, or even first paragraph or the lead as a whole even if they have similar (or greater) selectivity. The difficulty of gaining admission to a university is a tiny part of describing the institution as a whole and WP:BOOSTER exists to ensure that undue weight is not attributed to this or similarly narrow, but over-represented, metrics. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it the most important thing? Obviously not. But, as you know, sentence structure supports placing the adjective before the noun in this sense. (to be trivial: is it more important that Amherst teaches the "liberal arts" or that it is a "college"? probably that it is an institution of higher learning, but: "Amherst is a college of the liberal arts persuasion" is painful to read.) That's not the point, though. 1) You constantly refer to the athletic conference of certain institutions as an example of their prestige and their articles frequently refer to it within the first sentence. Is that really the most important thing about them? Who their football team plays? I suggest not, but it is a key part of their identity and the fact that Amherst, Williams, etc are "highly selective" is a similarly key part of their encyclopedic identity. (by disclosure, of course, I attended one of said schools). 2) The selectivity is a verifiable fact. If it's simply a matter of the source, that's fine. U.S News refers to Amherst[1] and Williams [2] as "most selective." We can use that if you'd prefer. On a brief tangent, I also supported the inclusion of the "term" elite, if properly cited to reliable third-party sources. If the standard is verifiability, then it ought to be included. In my opinion, neutral third-party assessments should not be labeled boosterism simply because they favor one school over another. Still, do I think it needs to be in the first sentence? No, but I think it fits reasonably well there. But I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the term "highly-selective" is categorically boosterism. JEB90 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in grammatical or syntactical debates, the example I provided merely illuminated what is elicited when I read "highly selective". My point is that these terms are not neutral and have no place in the lead, if the rest of the article at all. Instead of employing a loaded, debatable, but meaningless term like "elite" or "highly selective", why not simply provide the relevant admission and student body statistics for acceptance rate (what "selectivity" implies) and socio-economic diversity (what "elite" implies) and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. As sure as one can find a source demonstrating the school is "most selective", I can find another asserting it has "high selectivity." Which has more weight, conveys more information, is more neutral and comparable to other universities? Indeed, I take issue with your assertion that the identity of these institutions is primarily predicated on their selectivity — I think you would have a difficult time finding a trustee, mission statement, president, provost, chancellor, dean, chair, or other administrator asserting that the exclusivity/selectivity contributes singularly to the history and culture of an institution.

Rankings purport to measure quality, and while one can disagree with them on philosophical or methodological grounds, to the extent that they're already so prevalent and well-cited means that they belong in the article (obviously to my chagrin), these metrics, however, should not be the sole focus of the article. Too much breath on the these talk pages as well as within the spaces of the articles themselves is devoted to reputational hair-splitting and navel-gazing rather than developing substantive articles that adequately —much less encyclopedically— describe a college or university's history, campus, academics, research, activities, and affiliated people. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Arrived here through notification at WT:UNI. Keeping it short since third opinions have been requested so a consensus can be reached. I believe that, provided it's verifiable, the use of 'highly selective' constitutes an WP:NPOV statement of fact. 'Elite' is somewhat different and requires more diligence. I'd personally be inclined to include the former (backed by citations) and avoid the latter where possible. However, I don't think either count as WP:BOOSTER if they are supported by third party (i.e. reliable) sources. Simply leaving a statement along the lines of "X university is among an elite league of universities with highly selective entrance requirements" would be inappropriate; having it backed by citations from reliable sources would, however, be fine. We're not here to discuss 'truth', but 'fact' and 'elite' and 'highly selective' aren't necessarily boosterism if they are proven to be fact. Coldmachine^Talk 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the opinion that using the term "highly selective" is necessarily boosterism. "Highly selective" or reference-able variants thereof are statements of fact that are important for people who are researching institutions at which to study. Does it belong in the lead? It is probably a more important fact than much trivia that makes it into the lead, such as famous alumni, or the name of the sports teams. I agree that terms such as "elite" can seem boosterish, but this also can be a statement of fact. If you deny that Harvard is an elite institution or you contend that such a fact is unimportant, then I suspect you grinding an anti-elitist agenda and not concerned about full disclosure. Having recently counseled several less-privileged Jr. College students on selecting Universities, it is my experience that many do not know the differences between a local college and an elite institution. The more information you can give -- which includes letting them know the selectivity of the institution -- the more likely you are to help them develop a fuller understanding of the spectrum of educational experiences offered by different universities. I reject the notion that rankings are unimportant or necessarily lead people to make non-optimal decisions. Full information, including rankings, selectivity, history, campus, academics, research, etc. are all important to help people understand the natures of different institutions.

One way to bridge the differences of opinion on this matter would be to allow terms such as "highly selective", but have them be wikilinks to a short article describing the meaning of the within the context of a wikipedia university article. Such an article could also mention the controversy such terms engender and promote the notion that the terms are statements of fact that may or may not be important for determining the fitness of the institution for an individual student. Vantelimus (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Madcoverboy here. It's impossible to determine where "highly selective" begins and merely "selective" ends: 10% admitted? 20%? 30%? And why draw the line where we draw it, rather than a just slightly larger group (that would happen to include [random school I care about])? What about other adjectives, "not very selective," "somewhat selective," "extremely selective"? This kind of imprecise peacocking is an NPOV minefield and is inherently unverifiable. Admissions stats -- numbers -- are verifiable and objective, and readers can come to their own conclusions about what they mean. Passing judgement on what the numbers mean is original interpretive activity and not something Wikipedia should be doing. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we allow Wikipedia editors to assign adjectives such as "highly selective" to institutions. But if one can state such a thing with a good source then I don't see how anyone can seriously suggest that it not be included if it's important. I would hope that every editor would hesitate to remove information about selectivity based on the Carnegie Classifications. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I had never looked extensively at the ratings and classifications employed by the Carnegie Foundation but walking away, I am impressed. It certainly seems to be comprehensive, well thought-out, and is likely one of the most NPOV sources one could hope for since it is a large, well-established, independent non-profit. I would echo your earlier comment that this classification information should be included into more university articles (more on that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Carnegie). Carnegie only rates universities as "inclusive" (bottom three fifths), "selective" (middle two fifths), or "more selective" (top fifth) which does not appear to lend itself to being "superlative-ized" — though I wouldn't discount boosters' attempts to do it anyway: "Woebegone State University is rated as a more selective university by the Carnegie Foundation, the same as Harvard." etc. etc. etc. without including any of the other salient Carnegie information or contextual facts (aka, actual numbers).

However, the issue I am raising is the tendancy to (1) slip this imprecise, peacockish, weasily-worded terminology into the leads or other parts of articles that are unrelated to the discussion of admissions or the student body, (2) getting called on it, and (3) throwing up a citation as though passing the buck solves the problem. As Rbellin points out, even if a university is described as some flavor of "selective" in the context of other admissions information (rates, yields, SAT scores and GPAs, etc.) what yardstick do we use to distinguish among the flavors of superlatives (most, highly, etc.), how are boundary cases handled, and ultimately how would we equitably enforce such a policy? None of these are questions I want to answer. I'm not advocating the wholesale evisceration of "selective" from every article, only that it not be imprecisely applied as a general classification, especially in the lead.

Ultimately, I don't understand why editors are so caught up in the rat race of whose school is most, biggest, best instead of writing better encyclopedia articles. The greatest irony to this pissing match and strongest testament to this community and project is the fact that among the Top 25 USNWR national universities, only 4 have featured articles. So much for being the best where it really counts ;) Madcoverboy (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the number of featured articles is that important. I'm not caught up in the rat race of what article is featured and how many kudos icons I can add to my personal page. My only concern is to correct facts and make factual contributions on subjects that interest me when I have the time. I don't care about whether my alma maters appear to be the biggest, best, etc. I only care that what is represented is factual and to remove the occasional vandalism. I do happen to think that rankings and exclusivity ratings are important pieces of information about an institution, which is why I put some work into that ranking info box. Madcoverboy may disagree, but I do believe if you were allowed only one fact about a school, its ranking (in the context of the methodology used to determine the rankings) would be more valuable than just about any other piece of information published in its Wikipedia article. Happily, we don't face anything like that tradeoff here.

I'm sure we all agree that superlatives are inappropriate unless they can be backed up by an authoritative reference. I say, stick to USNWR or Carnegie phrasing and reference the source. Regardless of what you think about each source, both have legitmacy. Now, I'll go back to working on paying off the editors of USNWR to rate my alma maters "super-duper exclusively elite". Vantelimus (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently dispute that the USN&WR rankings have "legitimacy." They're commercially popular but widely derided by most who actually study higher education. This is a minor point in this discussion but one that should not go unchallenged. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I advocate doing original research on the issue... but I suspect Carnegie and USNWR have a reasonable degree of correlation on their selectivity assessments. Vantelimus (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how the consensus was reached on this page that referring to institutions as highly selective was boosterism. The box at the top of the page tells me that all changes to this page must reflect a consensus, but Madcoverboy seems to have made those changes to the page before this discussion began. If you're looking for votes, I agree with JEB90, Coldmachine and Vantelimus that "highly selective" (or "more selective" or a similar term) can be appropriate, particularly if cited. I've argued this point at some length on both the Amherst College and Williams College pages; both had highly selective cited (to USN&WR) before the text was removed by Madcoverboy. Npdoty (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Carnegie categorizes as "more selective" and USNews categorizes as "most selective." "Highly selective" is no where to be found as a categorical description of the institution in either source. Consensus is reflected by the fact that the vast majority of articles about "selective" institutions make no mention of their selectivity in the lead (Ivy League, AAU, etc.). It's just this cohort of liberal arts colleges that are hung up on exhorting readers about how hard they are to get into. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that's fair to say. Do we edit every article which uses the word Terrorist and change it to Freedom fighter? It's just semantics. Provided there are sources to illustrate the point which is being made then that's all that should matter. Let the reader determine how 'selective' selective is; we could help them and maintain WP:NPOV at the same time by providing multiple sources to illustrate inconsistency (or consistency). Coldmachine^Talk 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Let the reader determine how selective "selective" is rather than foisting this loaded, POV word on them - almost always in the first sentence of the lead. Give them the number of applicants, admission percentage, yields, average scores, and so forth rather than telling them it's "selective". While it's obvious that all this teeth-gnashing about "selectivity" is really just a facade for the prestige/eliteness/quality of the institution, if editors really wanted to convey that, I suspect "yield" is a far better metric for measuring which school students actually want to go to. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith of other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I posted on your talk page before finding this. I'll repeat what i said there: No, I'm afraid I beg to differ. Selectivity is a measure of notability. It would be appropriate to perhaps mention one or more selectivity indexes (as Politzer does), but selectivity is in fact major distinguishing factor among colleges, and the vast majority are not selective. Selectivity implies that there is competition to get into the college, which of course is used in boosting a college, but then so are most of the other statistical facts listed in college articles. I thin it is appropriate to include features that distinguish particular colleges and universties in the lead: size, selectivity, location, academic specialties, religious affiliation, and history are all applicable, and all could also be perceived as boosterish. I think all should be reverted, or reverted with references given for selectivity--Natcase (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to counter an argument you've made a couple times here, that it's only liberal arts colleges that include this in the listings. I would point out that research institutions include more than the undergraduate component, and often include more than one undergraduate school, so it is not appropriate in most cases to say (for example) that Harvard University is selective if what you are talking about is specifically Harvard College. I would go the other way and say that for elite undergrad components of unniversities, selectivity should be added in. Of course selectivity is not a unique identifier, but it defines a cohort of institutions that "selective" colleges consider each other to be part of, or wish to be part of, or sometimes decide they're done trying to be part of. Hope this is helpful.--Natcase (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a grossly mistaken notion of WP's notability policy if you think that "selectivity" (whatever this concept purports to encompass, define, or convey) can be construed to fulfill any of the significant coverage, reliable sources, etc. criteria for notability. Given the lack of any consensus for notability criterion specific to schools (see WP:SCHOOL), WP:ORG states that notability for non-commercial organizations is determined by "scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." Among the factors to determine "longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization." I completely fail to see how "selectivity is in fact major distinguishing factor among colleges" above and beyond the longevity, size, and achievements of these institutions as you assert. The implications of such a policy are obvious and legion so it clearly stands to reason that selectivity neither is nor should be basis for establishing notability. Natcase also undercut his own argument by correctly observing that notions of "selectivity" vary among divisions of an insitution. It should be obvious that if an article leverages a citation about freshman admissions alone to preface the first sentence of the lead thus generalizing it to the institution as a whole, this practice seems to undercut the reliability and verifiability of that statement.

Next, Natcase seems to imply that because statistics, size, location, affiliation, and history can be used to boost an article for a university, this sets the bar sufficiently low to allow us to include material that explicitly boosts an article by employing peacock and weasel terms like "selective." I would challenge any editor to come up with a comprehensive and reliable metric for defining a cohort of "selective institutions." Is it 20% or lower? Why not 15%? Shouldn't rejecting half your applicants also be grounds for being termed selective? What if it's a 51% admissions rate then?

Third, the notion that this one admissions statistic is the most bit of information that must be immediately conveyed to a reader is silly. As I have said before, the amount of other information that can and should be conveyed before this single statistic on the entering student body is overwhelming: location, history, student body, academics and organization, faculty and research, athletics, and alumni. WP:LEAD clearly states that the lead "should establish the context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Surely editors do not think that selectivity is the most interesting or notable aspect of their institution? Surely there must be some facet of the university far more redeeming and worthy of mention than blithely and repetitively invoking one of this year's admission statistics! How then is it possible that information that can be conveyed in 1-2 sentences ("Woebegon State University received 10,472 applications for admission into the undergraduate Class of 2012 and admitted 27%. WSU is classified as "highly selective" by US News & World Report and "more selective" by the Carnegie Foundation.") not only finds its way into the lead, but it transmuted and subsumed into some monolithicly imprecise term called "selective" or "highly selective", and then placed before all the other information elaborated at length in the rest of the article - even before where the institution is located?

Fourth, people have accused me of acting in bad faith, but I find it entirely ironic that the instituions that consistently have the greatest problem with continually reinserting this POV and peacock language are not only liberal arts colleges, but liberal arts colleges that are members of an academic alliance whose leadership has professed that rankings and the underlying abstracted statistics they are based upon "imply a false precision and authority that is not warranted by the data they use; obscure important differences in educational mission in aligning institutions on a single scale; say nothing or very little about whether students are actually learning at particular colleges or universities; encourage wasteful spending and gamesmanship in institutions' pursuing improved rankings;overlook the importance of a student in making education happen and overweight the importance of a university's prestige in that process; and degrade for students the educational value of the college search process." So it appears that despite (1) breaching the existing consensus at articles for the Ivy League, AAU, and the "Public Ivies" (a term I also loathe) who make no mention of selectivity in the lead, (2) flaunting flouting the expressed policy of their own institution's administration seeking to de-emphasize these unduly weighted statistics, and (3) neglecting the remainder summary-worthy topics throughout the rest of the articles, these articles and editors steadfastly committed to an obviously flawed policy of "Woebegon State University rejects many freshman applicants and is located in Lake Woebegon." Madcoverboy (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would challenge any editor to come up with a comprehensive and reliable metric for defining a cohort of "selective institutions." Here you go! --ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Per this, 65% of undergraduate institutions are "selective" or "more selective". This clearly undercuts Natcase's argument that this classification warrants mention because "the vast majority are not selective". It rather seems that institutions that are "inclusive" under the Carnegie classification are actually in the minority among colleges and thus better warrant a "selectivity" designation. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Of 3501 total institutions, 360 are "more selective", 560 are "selective", the remainder are inclusive or unclassified. Note however that 1782 of these are two-year institutions, the vast majority of which are community colleges (1689 are classed as "associates degree institutions") and therefore inclusive. By my count, we get 10% "more selective" and 16% "selective".

I misspoke and Natcase miscalculated. Because community/junior colleges are already widely acknowledged as being not selective (as Carnegie clearly makes no attempt to parse their selectivity), it's incorrect to include these in the calculation since you're comparing apples to oranges. Among "four year institutions" (n=1719), "selective" comprise 760 (44%) and "more selective" comprise 360 (21%). Madcoverboy (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your point that because many institutions are classified in particular manner that it doesn't make sense for us to mention those classifications? Or are you merely campaigning for a reduction in the prominence of these classifications in articles (removal from leads, for example)? --ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to:

1. the invention of the "highly selective" classifier when no source classifies thusly - WP:V
2. employing selectivity as a classifier as it is either obvious, redundant, or imprecise
3. purposely over-generalizing the specific definition of "selectivity" to connote quality, prestigiousness, exclusivity, quality, excellence etc. - see WP:WEASEL
4. asserting an institution's selectivity as fact without providing the relevant contextual information (ie, percentages, number of applicants, average scores/GPAs) for a reader - WP:PEACOCK
5. placing it within the lead, especially in the first sentence, thereby giving it undue weight - WP:LEAD
6. ignoring wide precedent among FAs, GAs, and widely-recognized "selective" institutions that already omit such trivialities
7. emphasizing these statistics and rankings to the detriment of more salient and valuable information in both the lead and the rest of the article

Madcoverboy (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I'd like to step back, if that's possible, and look at what's the real goal here. By that I mean, what are people trying to get at by calling their college "selective." Madcoverboy, your explicit argument is it's nothing but puffery and snobbery. But there is a difference between colleges that has to do with how high-achieving the student body is coming in (and so presumably coming out). You can put numbers to it, but it is really a general comparative that is important, and this is why so many commercial college guides include classes (4-6 seems normal) based on some combination of average/median class rank, standardized test scores, and ratio of applications to acceptances. I think it telling that the Carnegie explanations don't give numbers, they just say in general terms what statistics they looked at. The numbers and the classes are soft. Which is seemingly the biggest root gripe of Madcoverboy.

We have no single quantitative that satisfactorily ranks up individual colleges 1-2-3, which is the point of most arguments against the US News rankings. But we do have a raft of different people's rankings. Carnegie, but also the various guides (Barron's grouped rankings were mentioned earlier, but Peterson's has another different grouped ranking, and there are plenty of "selective college" guides). Why not compile status from these into a general fact box: "Barrons:less selective|Peterson's:more competititve|Carnegie:more selective|etc.]. This way we are not depending on any authoritative source, nor are we relying on the wiki-author's personal opinion. It's a quote of several reasonably authoritative sources.

So, to answer Madcoverboy's last list:

1. the invention of the "highly selective" classifier when no source classifies thusly. Bollocks, there are tons of such classifications. See paragraph above. And yes they are opinions, but reviews are used throughout wikipedia as one basis of notability and as legitimate material for text --Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

So use those specific, verifiable classifications in rather than an invented, imprecise, and POV one. As I have said before US News classifies as "most selective", Carnegie as "more selective. None to my knowledge, and certainly to the knowledge of the boosters who keep reinserting this language have found a source that classifies thusly. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with simplifying things by using "highly" as a modifier when multiple reliable sources use their most extreme category to classify an institution. It seems to make more sense than to explain in all of those articles that "most selective" is the most extreme category employed by US News & World Report, "more selective" is Carnegie's most extreme category (although not very "extreme" considering how few categories they employ), etc. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, it would be obscene to develop some sort of policy to assign adverbs to preface selective based upon thresholds. Similarly, as the Luther College example demonstrates, an institution with an 82% admissions rate is still classified as "more selective" by at least once source (Carnegie), thus lumping it into the same category as institutions with significantly higher quantitative selectivity rendering the term meaningless. I will go so far as to assert that the vast majority of, if not every, notable institution can be reliably classified as some flavor of "selective". It's a meaningless term. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wrong: [3] is a list of "inclusive" institutions as classified by Carnegie of which many have Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, I continue to assert that the vast majority of notable universities can be reliably classified as selective making it a useless distinction unless we want to have a policy of parsing adverbs. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

2. employing selectivity as a classifier as it is either obvious, redundant, or imprecise. Obvious to whom? One needs to know the context to know that being an Ivy means very selective. I say make it explicit, or we are are revealing North American (not to say USA) bias. See above on imprecise. --Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

It's obvious insofar as any high school freshmen can tell you that colleges do not admit everyone who applies. Thus every college is "selective". Some colleges are more selective than others, but to nakedly assert that a college is "selective" without any other information is akin to claiming that it has books, professors, buildings, and a board of trustees. Duh. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First, not every college is selective. Relying on the intuition of "any high school freshmen [sic]" won't get you very far when discussing these very complex organizations. Second, claiming that an institution is selective and supporting that claim with citations is nothing like "nakedly assert[ing]" anything. Third, it would be nice if all of our articles described, with citations and descriptive adjectives, the library holdings, faculty, physical plant, and governance structure. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited the Luther College (Iowa) article today because of the concerns raised by Iulus. Luther has an admissions rate of 82% and is classified as "more selective" by both Carnegie and US News. As I have already repeatedly stated, I do not equate selectivity with quality, but I doubt 82% falls into anyone's conception of selective. This is precisely the reason why the term is used imprecisely even with citations. I'll respond in detail to more of ElKevbo's replies tomorrow. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So you removed information from an article because you DISAGREE with the cited sources? That's unacceptable and a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's in the article with the appropriate context, not unspecifically thrown into the lead. Deep breaths everyone. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3. purposely over-generalizing the specific definition of "selectivity" to connote quality, prestigiousness, exclusivity, quality, excellence etc. Absolutely, but as I've argued above, the solution is to demand third-party evaluation, and eliminate promotion-speak, not to eliminate the criteria. --Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

Then we're on the same page. Strip this purposely promotional language from the lead and confine it to a section that discusses it in the appropriate context. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

4. asserting an institution's selectivity as fact without providing the relevant contextual information (ie, percentages, number of applicants, average scores/GPAs) for a reader Yup, and maybe we need to make a basic stats section standard in US higher education articles, perhaps botting it in as is done with municipalities and census info. Much of the data is freely available from the USDOE. --Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

Absolutely. It would be hard to do this in the lead without undue weight, however. So keep it out of the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made much of an argument supporting this claim. I don't see why institutions with extreme selectivity shouldn't have that mentioned in their lead as it seems to be an interesting and defining characteristic. That it's very hard to get into Julliard and Berklee is an important and interesting defining characteristic of those exclusive institutions. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

5. placing it within the lead, especially in the first sentence, thereby giving it undue weight. If a college is notable for its age, we include it in the lead; if it's large, we note that, especially with a context (largest undergrad in Kansas, for example, not large university). When a college is notable for it's drawing an especially high proportion of high academic performers, why is this not notable? The rule should not be, "don't include things colleges boast about," but "don't boast about things." There's a difference, which to me is the core of this whole effort to avoid academic boosterism. --Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

Selectivity does not describe whether or not a college draws high academic performers It describes what percentage of applicants are admitted, that is all. The implication and the very thing I am railing against is this perception that admissions rate (which is what "selectivity" and "exclusive" are) implies or connotes quality, when it is simply a measure of how many students get in over how many applied. If you want to describe a notable distinction such as student "quality", then include the average GPA, SAT score, number of National Merit scholars admitted or number of future PhD students/Rhodes/Nobel/MacArthur produced. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I politely suggest that you're waging your crusade in the wrong place. I agree with you and wish you the best of luck but I think you're projecting onto your fellow Wikipedia editors a viewpoint that many of us simply don't hold. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

6. ignoring wide precedent among FAs, GAs, and widely-recognized "selective" institutions that already omit such trivialities As I've said before, I think that is a reverse sort of snobbery/puffery. I'd rather go the other way and put that information in the other articles, being careful not to generalize from undergraduate schools to their parent universities. --Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

You didn't address my arugment at all. The fact that the majority of the most selective institutions have eschewed this trivial classification while relegating any discussion of "selectivity" to the specific section on admissions reflects a broad and wide consensus that I am simply trying to equitably enforce in all articles. Your argument belies a belief that snobbery/puffery language in an article is appropriate insofar as it is somehow balanced with more critical language miraculously inserted by the same editors espousing the snobbery/puffery. I would rather simply hew to a line that employs NPOV language with verifiable data and eschew classifications based upon byzantine methods by POV publishers. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bologna. If you believe there is a consensus then you need to point to actual evidence of such a consensus. A lack of information most certainly does not imply a consensus to omit that information. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

7. emphasizing these statistics and rankings to the detriment of more salient and valuable information in both the lead and the rest of the article.I think the rest of my argument covers this.[After the fact, and in light of Iulus Ascanius' later comment below, sorry I forgot to sign. It was late...--Natcase (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)]

Perhaps you could elaborate upon it and address my concern that far too much breath in many articles is devoted to justifying or parsing an institution's quality rather than simply describing the institution as it is and your comments seem to suggest that these distractions are appropriate. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The above was not signed, so I just want to start by noting I am not that author. But whoever it was is correct. And also, the above comments demonstrate that there is far from a consensus on eliminating these words. In fact, the vote would seem to be for the other direction. So Madcoverboy, please stop wantonly making all those edits and claiming it is justified by a consensus on this page.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is removing referenced selectivity facts saying they are justified by consensus demonstrated by the discussion on this page, then they are acting in bad faith. There is no consensus here about removing selectivity from the lead. There appears to be consensus about requiring references for selectivity ratings. So, if Madcoverboy is removing unreferenced selectivity claims, I've no beef about that and think claiming consensus on this page is reasonable. Vantelimus (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Madcoverboy's assertion that because this information isn't present in some article it implies a consensus to exclude this information from all articles is disingenuous and dishonest. It's certainly a topic worth discussing and one for which we should work towards a consensus but that consensus clearly hasn't yet been established. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that no consensus can be established by an absence of evidence. If that is indeed what Madcoverboy is doing, then he is not on solid ground. No consensus can be established by saying some articles don't contain selectivity rankings. This situation needs to be cut short with a formal vote. Polite conversation is not working. Vantelimus (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Existing consensus

I'm just continuing the fight that a fellow MIT editor and other university editors have already fought and won. "Selective" is the new "prestigious" which has already been banished by diligent editors. A smattering of previous discussions I've dredged up from "selective" institutions regarding booster terms backed by references in the lead:

• Harvard
• Yale 1, Yale 2
• Princeton
• Ivy League
• Cornell 1 and Cornell 2
• UPenn 1 and UPenn 2
• UChicago

I'm sure I can find more, but this fight has clearly already been fought. There is an explicit and long-standing consensus to keep this booster-cruft out of the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I remind you once again to assume good faith of your fellow editors ("booster-cruft").

Second, I note that you haven't provided very many examples at all of a consensus regarding selectivity but have instead decided to provide examples related to "prestige." I await further examples directly related to this term for which we have supplied multiple independent reliable sources (albeit with their own specific definitions and criteria). --ElKevbo (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is an actual edit summary used by Madcoverboy from Williams College:

Remove highly selective again. Consensus has already been established by precedent on other university's pages, other editor's contributions, and discussion. As you can see, it is claimed that there is a consensus in discussion on this topic - but the discussion here is hardly so. Moreover, the "precedent" on other university pages is all other edits by Madcoverboy. So please, please stop. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Iulus, if you were familiar with the article in question's edit history and discussion page you would realize that I am not the only editor with this viewpoint. 3 other editors have removed the same passage ([4], [5], [6]) other than me as well as extensive discussion on the talk page. Don't presume to dictate to me that every edit I have done has not been done in good-faith with existing consensus and wikipedia policy in mind. My improvements to Luther College should demonstrate as much. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment as someone who was involved in the two Cornell discussions above and involved in editing and discussions that lead to Cornell's FA status (although I certainly won't take more than a modicum of credit for that). I object to the discussions being used to justify some kind of phantom consensus. They are being taken entirely out of context and applied to a different situation. We had many reasons not to include rankings in the lede. This was developed over scattered discussion during a long period and involved reasons like feeling like we had other things we wanted to include before that kind of info. Most of us did not feel strongly about the issue or saw it as something that had to be done on other university articles. In addition, the issue of rankings is separate from mention of selectivity. You could make a reasonable argument that the mention of the Ivy League already connotes a kind of academic excellence and perhaps that's why we didn't feel the rankings were needed to give a proper perspective on Cornell. Although I can't speak for everyone else, I certainly did not think that by excluding rankings from the lede that somehow I was adding to some consensus that mention of some kind of exclusivity or selectivity should not be mentioned in some other institution's lede section. Indeed, a look through the archives should show that I'm not the only regular contributor to the Cornell article that felt such mentions could be appropriate. --C S (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed consensus

Proposed consensus points:

1. Numeric rankings (US News & World Report, Academic Ranking of World Universities can be mentioned in articles, but should not be included in the lead. Rankings information should include links to Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) as a counterbalance.

I would absolutely support this but I proposed this at WP:UNI and the "consensus" was that it depends on the article. I absolutely support stripping rankings from the lead sections, however. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not support a ban on rankings in the lead. Rankings exist because people find them useful in comparing institutions (see USNWR and many others) and institutions find them useful to calibrate the quality of different schools (see Carnegie and ARWU). Eliminating rankings from the lead merely because some people do not like them smacks of extreme political correctness to placate a small number of vocal editors. The proper policy should be to make the leads as valuable as possible, not as PC as possible. This means including information on rankings in the lead when there are not other sufficiently noteworthy subjects to mention. For instance, in the ARWU, for the last 6 years (i.e., since the ARWU was started), UCSD has been ranked either the second or third best public university in the world. In California, conventional thought tells everyone that Berkeley is best, UCLA second, and then there are the others. I suspect elsewhere, UCSD doesn't even enter the minds of students seeking admission to the top universities. The fact that UCSD is rated so highly in the world (let alone within UC) is startling and made me want to read the article. Here, having ranking information in the lead is extremely valuable and does what a lead should do... "explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points" Vantelimus (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: The Carnegie Classifications are not rankings. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a picky semantic detail. Whether classification or ranking, whether done for commercial motivations or to promote public good, I've no problem with using such third-party information provided it is notable and referenced. Vantelimus (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify ElKevbo's point: I am specifically not asking for us to ban mentioning classes of college (like groupings by selectivity) in the lead. For Vantelimus's point, while I see his point in his particular example, I see a slippery slope with not clear boundaries ("St. Hedwig's College ranked a surprising 45th in the USN&WR rating of regional colleges in 1997!"). As a lead I think it might make sense to mention national and international rankings as differing from popular opinion in this case, then spell out the specifics later on. And no, rankings and groupings are different.--Natcase (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One more point, I do not favor automatic inclusion of links to Criticism of college and university rankings (North America). The focus of that article is primarily controversy surrounding the USNWR rankings. It does not provide a balanced view. (Indeed, I find it to be biased in that they spend most of their verbiage talking about the actions and reactions to the controversy without adequately explaining the substance of the controversy itself. A truly balanced article on the controversy would explain the alleged problems in detail and the response of USNWR to those allegations.) The proper reference would be to College and university rankings, an article that provides the balanced view necessary to contextualize the ranking information, including a description of all rankings and references to articles purporting to document the controversy. Vantelimus (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you mean "lead" as in first sentence or lead section? Either way, I disagree, but less with the former. What belongs in the lead sentence/section of an article is best determined by the editors of that article, within the context of general Wikipedia guidelines. I also see no reason to provide a counterbalance (although such a counterbalance certainly belongs in an article about rankings themselves). David.Kane (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is a whole other can of worms that should be left unopened until we get consensus on the selectivity issue(s). Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

2. The word "selective" or a adjective-inflected variant such as "highly selective" can be used in the lead if it is backed up in the body, otherwise it should be removed. "Selective" means the institution does not admit all applicants meeting basic qualifications (such as a high school diploma). Adjective-inflected variants need to be backed up by the phrasing a specific external (non-college) source. Care should be made not to generalize from the selectivity of a particular undergraduate college to the characteristics of an overall university.

I tried to parse this, but I honestly don't know what it means. "Highly" or not? "Selective" with cite? How not to generalize undergraduate selectivity to general selectivity? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is whatever phrasing you use should copy that used in a source rating. If Floodelhoofer's College Guide is referenced in the body (and is deemed an acceptable source), and calls the top level "Really Really Picky", then you can use that phrasing. And by generalizing, I mean you can say "Harvard College, the undergraduate bit of the university, is ranked as "really really hard to get into," but not "Harvard University is hard to get into."--Natcase (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good form seems to dictate that any ranking or indication of selectivity should also be in the body if it is in the lead. Any ranking or indication of selectivity in the body should be referenced since different sources use different criteria for their judgments. A ranking outside the context of the methodology is meaningless. Vantelimus (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. David.Kane (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that rather than extemporaneously delving into methodological and statistical differences among sources and classifications in each article, we should agree on a single source or subset of sources and emphasize that assertions or claims should only be attributed to these sources. Sure, the local Podunk Daily newspaper could develop it's own schema to improve the standing of Podunk State University, but these wouldn't be reliable or comparable. I would emphasize the Carnegie classifications owing to their age, non-profit status, exhaustiveness, transparency of methodology, free availability of data, and general neutrality. Likewise for the National Research Council (for reputation rankings) which will release its 10-year findings sometime in the next few weeks and most NSF publications (mainly regarding research expenditures). Sure there are other for-profit publications, but you wouldn't cite them for population data when you had more reliable Census data available nor for classification information for foreign countries when you had more exhaustive data from the CIA World Factbook, so I don't see why this would be different. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Reference in the body should be made to Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education phrasing and if possible to numerical statistics (percent of applicants admitted, standardized test scores, high school class percentiles for example). Other ranking and selectivity-classification schemes should be referenced, and if possible referenced to a Wikipedia article discussing the scheme.

I support including Carnegie classifications into the "academics", "student body" and "research" sections that have the numerical statistics to contextualize the classification. If Carnegie is cited to classify an institution as selective in the lead, then the lead should include other relevant Carnegie classifications as well since selectivity is not the only relevant information to convey. I am striking out the previous comment since I continue to oppose including any mention of selectivity in the lead for the reasons I've already outlined (redundancy, non-specificity, etc.) but if editors could swallow including most or all of the Carnegie classifications in the lead (as redundant as they may seem), then I could swallow including selectivity in the lead so long as it isn't given undue weight by putting it in the first sentence. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would support "selectivity" being included in the lead if and only if it was present there because of other Carnegie classification information. If it's up there by itself, it's still a no go for me. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An example I implement on UCSD: "The four year, full-time undergraduate program is classified as "more selective, higher transfer-in" by the Carnegie Foundation and was ranked 35th among national universities by U.S. News & World Report." Madcoverboy (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not with being so strict. I think as I have suggested before that there needs to be some flexibility in editors choosing what is most important about the school. I think it should be suggested as part of cleanup guidelines that there are a lot of different ways to cut the college pie, and here is a list of statistical data it would be good to include, and please include as many as possible in the leasd, and please consider all of these in formulating the lead.--Natcase (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Carnegie has very useful information. Including information from it can make an article better. But, I hesitate to make a rule that would compel people to use information from Carnegie. As stated above, I wholeheartedly support referencing any ranking or selectivity claim made and would go so far as to say without reference such information seems little more than editorial opinion. Vantelimus (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Carnegie offers us the most neutral-looking classification scheme out there, and I think it makes sense to make a place for it in a standard template format. Of course, not every article is fleshed out using templates, but I think using Carnegie as a starting point makes solid sense.--Natcase (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. David.Kane (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Other booster-words like "elite" and "prestigious" should be removed per previous discussions here.

Absolutely. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this with the caveat that not including this information may perform a disservice to some readers. Schools like those in the Ivy League are prestigious and elite. Regardless of how irritating or distasteful it is to some editors, it can make a huge difference in one's education, career, and life, to attend Harvard or Yale instead of Some Random State University. And, no, I don't think it is obvious to everyone researching universities which ones are elite and which aren't. My experience counseling disadvantaged youths bears this out. I recognize, though, that using these words like "prestige" and "elite" can create resentments that lead to excessive vandalism. Vantelimus (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The point made elsewhere that "Harvard is a prestigious university" is akin to "The Wizard of Oz is a well-loved family film" in that is states generalities with peacock words without backing them up. You can say the same thing using facts ("Harvard is the United States' oldest institution of higher learning, and has more presidents, Nobel Prize winners, wikipedia editors and cupcake experts among its undergraduate alumni than any other college" (facts made up on the fly, verify at your own risk), and end up with a much more solid fact-based lead. --Natcase (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nutcase, I agree that it is far more important to list facts as you show in your example. I would object to a stand-alone sentence such as "Harvard is a prestigious university" also. However, Harvard is a prestigious university and that does have its consequences. The proper way to mention prestige is in a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages that prestige brings to the institution (e.g., old-boys networks, dominance in certain fields of endeavor, rivalries, prejudice, etc.). As for your "Wizard of Oz" example, it does happen to be a fact that the "Wizard of Oz" is a well-loved family film, at least in the US. I'm sure you can find a reference for that, "peacock" terms or not. I'm also sure that the fact would be interesting to those researching the "Wizard of Oz" who might not have been inculcated with US popular culture. Vantelimus (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. I agree that readers need some information about this topic but I also agree that words like "elite" are not very useful. Perhaps we could standardize on "selective" along with various adjectives? I don't have a great solution to this. David.Kane (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?--Natcase (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While a good first step, I don't think it addresses the problem that got us into the conundrum, namely, what to do about non-neutral words airdropped into the lead or even first sentence? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative consensus

• The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is the most exhaustive, neutral, and reliable source for classifying and otherwise comparatively describing higher education institutions.

Support as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support--Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I am not sure that this is something we should be voting on (or discussing) as part of Wikipedia guidelines. But I agree that the Carnegie Classification is a better source for Wikipedia's purposes than many others, and I would strongly encourage an article on the Carnegie Classifications to be written, both because it'd be an interesting and informative read and because it'd allow for easier citation. (never mind, I see there is an article at Carnegie Classification). -- Rbellin|Talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: First, let me second Rbellin and say I don't understand the purpose of this claim. What, precisely, are we trying to reach consensus on? Is the claim that any any article referencing a school classified by Carnegie must reference that classification? I am not for or against that consensus, I just don't understand the goal here. Second, what evidence do you have that Carnegie is more "neutral" than other classification schemes? I am aware of none. I agree that it is more exhaustive. I also have doubts about its reliability, at least compared to schemes that are updated more frequently David.Kane (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to cite any particular source but as a scholar in this field (American higher education) I can assert that the Carnegie Classification is the gold standard and is by far the most unbiased and respected classification scheme in common use. In fact, I can't think of any other general classification scheme excepting purely demographic or geographic descriptors (mostly developed and maintained by NCES in the Department of Education) in common use. Older versions of the classification scheme are also frequently referenced by scholars, particularly the idea of "Research I" institutions. Maybe the NCAA divisions come closest to widespread acceptance and usage but those are obviously a very different sort of classification scheme as they're purely voluntary and narrow in purpose. There are almost certainly other classification schemes that are used, particularly ones more narrowly focused, but nothing that I know and use has the reach and acceptance of the Carnegie Classifications. Perhaps AIR may have some useful resources on this subject...? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with RBellin and David.Kane: this particular statement seems to be relatively unrelated to and far away from the topic of discussion and debate. I obviously agree with the statement but I'm not sure it really has a place here. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this statement doesn't seem relevant. I also don't know that it's true (though it seems plausible), but since I think it's irrelevant, that hardly matters. Npdoty (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Support : I think the statement is irrelevant. It may be true. It may not. I withhold support only because it is best not to have consensus on a proposition that does no immediate good and has unknown down-the-road consequences. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not support Take out the phrase about "comparatively describing" institutions, and I might agree. It seems that some people still don't understand the difference between ranking and classification. Ranking places a group of items (schools) in order from top to bottom along some dimension (e.g., size). Classification groups together like things (e.g., schools, apples, oranges). Classification, a la Carnegie, is not intended to compare one school with another, but to create groups of similar institutions. Universities use this information to assess their programs, services, salaries, etc. For example, they will look at the salaries of other schools in their same classification to determine what salaries they have to offer to attract quality faculty, or examine the student services offered at other similar schools to determine what types of counseling services students at their school might benefit from. Though the Carnegie rankings are well done, focusing so heavily on them will only have negative consequences. I've already seen school pages that assert that Carnegie has ranked the school as a "high research" school, the highest ranking that Carnegie gives. That's a blatant misuse of the Carnegie categories. Some schools are liberal arts colleges that don't do much research; some are major research centers. They're different, but one is not better than the other. From a student's perspective, it's just a matter of preference as to the type of school that works best for them. The Carnegie Classification should be used to describe the character of a school, not its quality.

Comment Another reason not to rely so heavily on the Carnegie Classification is that it's dated. It's only updated every 6-10 years. The current (2005) report is based on 2002-03 and 2003-04 data. It's already 5 years out of date.

"Classification, a la Carnegie, is not intended to compare one school with another, but to create groups of similar institutions." I don't think you understand the implication of your statement and are drawing a false dichotomy between rankings and classifications. Everyone agrees that Carnegie classifications aren't rankings. But classifications are useful, indeed more useful than rankings, because the provide reliable dimensions along which institutions can be reliably described rather than booster's attempts to devolve articles into statements like: "SRSU is the most selective and prestigious public university founded after 1900 in this history of Random State." Carnegie researchers aren't just sitting around inventing categories to lump institutions into because it's fun, but precisely to ensure that schools can be be equitably compared to each other. After all, if Carnegie was just engaged in bean sorting, why would it allow users "To find similar institutions, check the dimensions of interest and click the 'find similar' button"? Or why would it describe itself as a framework for "describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education....as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty." These classifications absolutely should be included in the articles because they are neutral, reliable, authoritative, and free. To the (unsigned) comment that is wary of relying on the Carnegie classifications, I would ask: "How much statistically significant variance do you see in an institution's annual rankings?" The answer is little to none. Yale need not worry about North Dakota State surpassing it in any one year. Should we rely on rankings from 1995? Probably not. But the NRC rankings only come out every 10 years and are far more neutral and reliable and transparent than any US News, Princeton Review, Kaplans, etc. rankings that come out every year. If new data is available include it, but just because reliable data is old isn't cause enough to automatically exclude it. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Asserting the selectivity (or inclusiveness) of a university is a type of classification. Thus, the Carnegie Classifications should be cited at a minimum when making such a classification.

Support as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support- it is a minimum, and may be supplemented with additional groups selectivity classifications, if these are referenced--Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree This seems like a good suggestion, but I don't think we should be forcing editors to cite this one source in particular. Npdoty (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Support: I think the Carnegie classifications are great sources. I encourage anyone to cite them when they add to an article. I don't support the proposed consensus because I think it unwise to mandate the inclusion of information from a particular source. If information from the Carnegie classification will make an article better, I trust an editor will include it. If not, I trust the omission of the information is for the best. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: First, it's important to remember that these classifications are limited to American institutions. Second, I disagree with some of my colleagues in that I *do* think standardization in some areas is a good thing i.e. certain sources should be mandatory in some articles. We do this all the time in articles and I don't know why these articles would be any different. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Same reasons as Npdoty. David.Kane (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree Per its website, Carnegie does not rank colleges and universities on any dimension:[7] "The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences." "Classification is different from ranking, and the Carnegie Foundation has never been in the rankings business." "For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about ... the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality .... This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to deemphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone."

• The selectivity of a university or college provides a limited, but important, description of the institution as a whole.

Support as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support--Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support--David.Kane (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support This seems like the most important point, as well as the one we all agree on. Npdoty (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I agree with the statement. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I certainly agree with the statement but I don't know why it's something we're discussing or !voting on. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Undue weight should not be given in the lead of the article to classifying the selectivity of the institution to the exclusion of other important and relevant classification and general information.

Support--Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DisagreeOr, rather, not sure that this makes any sense. "Undue weight," on any topic and in any article, is to be avoided. We all agree. The issue concerns what sort of weight is acceptable. (An uncharitable inference is that reading some sort of psuedo consensus on this topic would allow an editor to go around changing college articles and placing the amount of weight (or no weight) that she thought appropriate and then citing this discussion as evidence for a consensus.) In order to make any progress, you need to provide specific examples of "undue weight." For example, consider: "Williams College is a selective private liberal arts college." Is the use of the word "selective" in the first sentence undue weight? I don't think so. David.Kane (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Support: Undue weight should be given to no piece of information, whether in the lead or the article body. I agree with the statement in spirit but do not support it as a consensus because it is too vague. What is undue weight? You can define the extremes, but finer distinctions require editorial judgment. Everyday, Wikipedia editors make this call. The community seems to resolve disagreements just fine without this proposal. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Sounds reasonable but I don't know how useful it is since it seems to be in accord with other existing policies and practices, particularly WP:DUE. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Alternative with change bolded: Undue weight should not be given in the lead of the article to emphasizing the selectivity classification of the institution to the exclusion of other important and relevant classification and general information.

Support both as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree The amount of emphasis on selectivity in the lead of an article is best left to the editors who focus on that article, in conjunction with editors working on related schools. One size does not fit all. David.Kane (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I agree with David Kane here. Nothing should receive "undue weight" and whether the weight is due or not should be decided by the editors.

Do Not Support: It is the job the editors to decide what is important. Though the statement seems reasonable, I don't know that it applies in every case. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Sounds reasonable but I don't know how useful it is since it seems to be in accord with other existing policies and practices, particularly WP:DUE. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Selectivity should only be discussed in the body of the article within the context of relevant, reliable, and verifiable statistics regarding admissions and the student body.

Support as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with caveats I think it is also acceptable to discuss in terms of other groups' summary evaluations (Barrons, Peterson's, etc), though statistically backed-up discussion is preferable. --Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support without reservation. I continue to think this kind of thing is inappropriate for articles' lead sections. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I think selectivity may be relevant and important enough to be mentioned in the lead. I do agree that it should be cited. Npdoty (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Support: Selectivity may be relevant in the lead. It is up to editors to decide. I do not support taking the discretion away from editors. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I can not fully agree to limiting this to the body of the article but if it's necessary as a compromise so we can move forward then I'm willing to do so. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Same reasoning as Npdoty and Vantelimus. David.Kane (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I read the proposal as "When discussed in the body of ther article, selectivity should only be discussed within the context of relevant, reliable, and verifiable statistics regarding admissions and the student body," rather than "Selectivity should only be discussed in the body of the article, and then only within the context of relevant, reliable, and verifiable statistics regarding admissions and the student body." If the latter is the intent, then my vote is disagree for reasons noted above. The previous consensus point, however, seems to indicate the former interpretation.--Natcase (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)--Natcase (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Care should be taken to ensure that the content of the article accurately represents the precise classification of the source rather than appending non-neutral, non-specific, and unverifiable modifiers (e.g., "highly", "most", "extremely", "best").

Support as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with caveats all such words should be quoted and referenced to a source, but if a reasonably reliably source (a published general college guide of any kind, really) uses a non-backed up word, then as long as it's attributed and referenced, I'd say it's OK.--Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is basically a paraphrase of "avoid peacock terms" and should not be controversial. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I agree that editors shouldn't add their own meanings (as above, I think this information should be cited), but I have no problem with rewording to improve sentence flow. Npdoty (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I think this is a good policy to diffuse controversy over content that if not accurately and properly cited can fairly be interpreted as boosterism. Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That should read: "if not accurately quoted and properly cited" Vantelimus (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree and Npdoty summed up my reasons for disagreeing very well. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Same reasoning as Npdoty. Note, especially, that the Carnegie Classifications are confusing. The most selective classification is "More Selective." Unless you already know about the terms, you are likely to not understand that "more" means "most" here. David.Kane (talk)

• Care should be taken to ensure that classifications and rankings are not leveraged or generalized to extend beyond their specific context. (e.g., Carnegie only classifies the selectivity of undergraduate program and US News's National Universities and Liberal Arts only rank the undergraduate component, not the university as a whole)

Support as nominator Madcoverboy (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (and nicely done overall, I'd say)--Natcase (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Npdoty (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Vantelimus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I further add that many rankings first group institutions together using some criteria before ranking them, making the ranking of use only within a particular context (i.e. US News and World Report's "National University" category). --ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

General comment I remind editors that this conversation is narrowly focused in scope to only include American institutions of higher education. I don't think this is really an issue for us but it is something that must be kept in mind as this is an international encyclopedia. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaint I would like to note that I find the behavior of Madcoverboy on some of the college pages to be unhelpful. Consider the history [8] associated with Williams College. I (and other editors) will be happy to abide by any consensus that is reached here (or at the Williams talk page) but, instead of waiting for consensus, Madcoverboy insists on forcing his changes to our previous-consensus of describing Williams as "highly selective." Again, once consensus is reached, we will abide. But Madcoverboy's repeated claims that consensus has already been reached are misleading and annoying. David.Kane (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the bait and switch tactics. You continue to unilaterally revert my good faith, compromise edits without discussion despite two other editors indicating on the Williams talk that they find the compromise acceptable and have made similar allowances on other pages, indeed still after 3 other editors have made the same changes I have made and extensive discussion before that. Now it appears that you're trying to find some refuge here over the lack of general consensus. It seems clear to me that you will only abide by a consensus insofar as it is an explicit repudiation of your preoccupation with including selectivity in the first sentence of the lead otherwise you continue to assert that no consensus exists to remove it. I am at my rope's end dealing with these childish antics and would like to call on editors with cooler heads to intervene. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with David.Kane. You yourself try to find refuge in the "3 other editors." But there are also 3 editors on the Williams page (plus other editors here) who disagree, which you conveniently fail to mention. There is no consensus on that talk page, nor is there one here. The fact a college is selective is extremely important to its identity. Comparing Williams, Carleton, and similar colleges to your local community college or for-profit scam school, is the prime differentiating aspect that they are liberal arts? Private or public? I, for one, do not think so. It's that they do not hand out degrees to anyone who writes a check. I'm not a fan of "highly" since it is a variable word, unless it is specifically referenced. But the topic is a defining characteristic.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree with both sides. I thought Madcoverboy did a good edit job that made for a much stronger lead. In fact, his rewording makes me more sympathetic to his view because he demonstrated how to make the lead much better without appeal to ambiguous superlatives. But I also think the edit war should stop until consensus is reached and heads are cooler. Vantelimus (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text

Do we have a consensus yet? What would people think of the below text? I've tried to pull out the agreements from above and in a style that I would like to see. (I'm pushing this because I'm concerned that the current text of the project page directly contradicts our consensus here and so may be spreading incorrect policy through Wikipedia.) Npdoty (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Clearly, we have consensus on your three bullet points below. And, just as clearly, there is no consensus on the other points. Kudos to all involved in the process. David.Kane (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon. We clearly have consensus on your bullet points one and three and, I believe, the first two sentences of point two. There does not seem to be consensus on the last sentence, so I am striking it out. Unless there are any objections to what remains, I think that Npdoty's description on the consensus is fair and accurate. David.Kane (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Selectivity

The selectivity of a college or university provides an important, but limited, description of the institution.

• Editors should consider how important or distinguishing the selectivity of an institution is when determining where or whether to include it in the lead.
• Editors should take care to cite sources for selectivity and avoid unverifiable claims, peacock terms and weasel words. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education may be a good place to start. Though editors may reword to improve sentence flow, Care should be taken not to invent terminology, reframe information to improve standings, or use weasel words such as "is generally considered" or "is widely recognized as."
• Editors should ensure that the scope of classifications is not misrepresented; Carnegie classifications and USNWR rankings cover the undergraduate component only, not the institution as a whole.

I think it works overall. I suggest the following rewrite of the second point: "Editors should take care to cite sources for selectivity and avoid unverifiable claims. It is common in casual conversation to conflate "selectivity" with peacock terms like "quality" and "reputation." Discussion of selectivity should be constrained to its actual meaning, the range between colleges that accept all students with a high school diploma, and colleges that accept only those that meet a high bar of achievement in high school. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education may be a good place to start. Although editors are always free to choose their own wordings, care should be taken not to misrepresent sources or invent terminology, or to use weasel words."

"Editors are always free to choose their own wordings"? I thought we had a policy of neutrality and verifiability, not whatever sounds good. I understand the spirit and motivation of the statement, but if you give an inch, they'll take a mile in my book. This single phrase guts the rest of an otherwise acceptable consensus. I'm opposed unless it's clear that editors can't go fabricating/inventing/reconfiguring rankings/classifications/wordings under any circumstances. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[this thing is getting too long, but...] "...Editors are free to choose their own wordings within the bounds of factual accuracy and verifiability, but care should be taken in discussing selectivity not to misrepresent sources, invent terminology, or use weasel words such as "is generally considered" or "is widely recognized as."--Natcase (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see why the "choose their wordings" clause is necessary. Obviously there is no policy specifying the exact syntax that can be employed in an article, nor should there be. Moreover, in practice, the majority of university pages are unpatrolled by non-affiliated editors, thus implying that editors are already have substantial freedom to choose wordings without being challenged. Nevertheless, this phrase undermines the entire purpose of a policy meant to standardize and improve this project by giving agency to editors ignorant of the well-debated and tenuously-constructed consensus made here to do what they will: "Per WP:BOOSTER, I can say whatever I want and because it's cited to SRSU's Glossy Admissions Website, it's verifiable."

How about: "It is common to use "selectivity" as a peacock term to connote "quality" and "reputation." Let the facts speak for themselves - editors should not be trying to convince readers of the quality of the school. Selectivity has a specific meaning and discussing a university's selectivity (as well as related information such as rankings, memberships, and classifications) should meet the minimal standards of Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliable sources, preferably by citing independent sources such as the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, National Science Foundation, and National Research Council or standardized data like the Common Data Set. When discussing selectivity, rankings, classifications, etc., editors should take care not to invent terminology, parse or reframe the information to improve standing, or use weasel words such as "is generally considered" or "is widely recognized as." Madcoverboy (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Madcoverboy sought above to achieve a consensus that would prevent, say, "College X is highly selective" with a citation to US News. He failed to achieve that consensus or anything close to it. David.Kane (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No based upon the merits of my argument, or no because I hurt your feelings? In the land of grown ups, we call this consensus formation were we try to find a middle ground, not dismiss a suggestion out of hand because you hold a grudge. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the concern, and I certainly don't want to say that editors can say whatever they want (that's why I specifically called out misrepresentation and invention of terminology). I've tried to combine Natcase's and Madcoverboy's suggestions into what I've now posted above:

• Though editors may reword to improve sentence flow, care should be taken not to invent terminology, reframe information to improve standings, or use weasel words such as "is generally considered" or "is widely recognized as."

Hopefully this won't give any editor the idea that WP:Booster lets him write whatever he wants, and it also includes more specific issues and some examples. I'm wary of posting something like Madcoverboy's discussion of selectivity and quality: it seems to me controversial and questioning the good faith of the editors reading the page. Npdoty (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm just waiting for an argument why this phrase is necessary to include since my reading of the debate did not include any controversy over allowing editors to write WP:MOS-compatible, grammatically-correct sentences. Was there anything in my proposed wording that editors were specifically opposed to including in a consensus policy statement? Obviously I'm still opposed to including selectivity in the lead, but it's clear that editors would rather address this on an article-by-article basis. Thus, I'm willing to sign on to a consensus that neither explicitly affirms nor denies the possibility of including selectivity in the lead as I wrote above. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to encode my comment above (which a couple people signed onto) that we should allow re-wordings: "I agree that editors shouldn't add their own meanings (as above, I think this information should be cited), but I have no problem with rewording to improve sentence flow."

Is there anything wrong with saying "selective" or "highly selective" when citing a source that uses the phrasing "most selective"? If this is redundant because of other WP policy (MOS or whatever), I wouldn't mind just saying so. But I don't think it hurts to be a little redundant for the sake of clarity. I'm glad that we agree on a policy that "neither explicitly affirms nor denies the possibility of including selectivity in the lead". I'd like to get that on the project page as soon as possible: if we want to remove the contentious phrase beginning "Though.." in the meantime, I'd be satisfied with that. (I've stricken it out above.) Npdoty (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If I am to understand the context in which this comment was intended and the implications for any policy, this phrase then is just a proxy to allow editors to transmute "most selective" or "more selective" into "highly selective". It seems to me that such an intent clearly undermines the consensus not to invent or reframe terminology and is one of many reasons we're having the whole debate in the first place. Am I misreading this? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sneak something past other editors through a proxy. :) I do think it's awkward (and not representational) to say that "According to USNWR, Williams College is a most selective liberal arts college." Can we come up with a guideline that discourages inventing terminology or reframing information to improve standings while not limiting editors to such awkward sentences? In the meantime, are we agreed on the text above that isn't stricken out? Npdoty (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think at some point the parsing becomes absurd. We definitely don't want someone saying "Wobegon is an extremely selective college" when the most you can quote from someone reputable is "more selective." On the other hand, it seems to me like "very selective", "most selective", and "highest level of selectivity" are all roughly synonymous...goodness knows the various guides all have their own series of names. The question is how to allow editors to rephrase without forcing them to overemphasize, which detailed quoting of sources in the lead would, IMHO, tend to do ("Wobegon is a four-year liberal arts institution. According to the highly respected Carnegie Rankings, is categorized as 'more selective'." feels way out of balance, but there's not much to add to the former two characteristics to balance them). I think the language of caution balanced by editorial judgment as proposed is adequate.--Natcase (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Natcase and think that this proposal is fine. I first came to this debate because I thought that the opening line of the Williams College article (Williams College is a highly selective private liberal arts college located in Williamstown, Massachusetts.) was reasonable. (I did not write it.) I still think it is reasonable, and consistent with this consensus. David.Kane (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Since there have been no changes for almost a month, I believe that we have reached consensus on these points:

The selectivity of a college or university provides an important, but limited, description of the institution.

• Editors should consider how important or distinguishing the selectivity of an institution is when determining where or whether to include it in the lead.
• Editors should take care to cite sources for selectivity and avoid unverifiable claims, peacock terms and weasel words. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education may be a good place to start. Though editors may reword to improve sentence flow, care should be taken not to invent terminology, reframe information to improve standings, or use weasel words such as "is generally considered" or "is widely recognized as."
• Editors should ensure that the scope of classifications is not misrepresented; Carnegie classifications and USNWR rankings cover the undergraduate component only, not the institution as a whole.

Reading the comments above, there may be editors who want to remove the last sentence of point 2 above ("Though editors . . ."). I don't care one way or the other. Speak up if you want to remove it. There is certainly no consensus for anything stronger. Thanks to all for participating in the discussion. Unless there are objections, I will add this to the project page. David.Kane (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythos / Reputation

I've been trying to figure out what's really going on here, and not just here but in general in the whole "seelectivity" business in college guides and so on. Here's what I think: It is not seemly and polite to talk about a college's "mythos," but that's what's going on. One of the important things about Harvard is that "Harvard Aura" and the same is true of other "selective" institutions. You go there, you know you're hanging out with future Nobel Prize winners, or at least with people who can plausibly sound like future Nobel Prize winners. And this is known in the public at large.

So my question is, how can we talk about this in wikipedia? Some colleges have "Wobegon University in popular culture" sections,but these are mostly lists of mentions on TV. Seems to this is the place to mention "aura", and in some cases there's specific examples to bring up: Robert Pirsig and the University of Chicago, Paper Chase and Yale. For smaller schools, not so much. I went to Carleton College, which has the reputation as the highest-caliber college in Minnesota. But there's no movie or popular book that backs this up, and no news outlet wants to tick off alumni of other places unnecessarily by saying things like "Minnesota's top college". Maybe reference here to less-rigorous college guides (like College Prowler or The Insider's Guide to the Colleges) is in order, under the rubric of "How Carleton College is talked about," separate from verifiable stats.

The point is, if we can find some way to talk about reputation that isn't the article defining that reputation, I think that will get at a lot of the underlying issues here. Any suggestions are welcome.

Interesting point, Natcase. Reputation and mythos are important aspects of a college's image. I dare say it influences a lot of personal attendance decisions. A separate section would be required to describe this. I can see it leading to a lot of controversy, though, because there are at least three distinct views of a college that conflict and compete: internal self-image, external self-image, and image in popular culture. Take Yale for example. It is an elite college for sure. Graduating from Yale confers huge status points (and not just because of superior academics) over graduating from SRSU (some random state university). There are positive aspects to its image: cream-of-the-crop, creates national and world political, business, and academic leaders, etc. There are also negative aspects to its image: old money snobbery, old-boys network, etc. It would be easy to find citations for these things, but I suspect Yale grads would hate the negative aspects and start edit wars.

I guess the real question here is do editors feel it is within the mission of the encyclopedia to describe these very real aspects of a university's reputation? I think so. Vantelimus (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would emphasize extreme caution going down this road because as Ventelimus sagely points out that the motivation to present an internal self-image would be overwhelmingly dominant owing to the fact that the only contributors are likely to be alumni and students. The selectively cited sources and authors casting an institution would preferentially find themselves into the articles while more negative perspectives would be preferentially excluded. One need only examine the extent to which "objective" numerical assessments are are made to conform to the POV of boosters writing the article: the negative "rankings" in the Princeton Review inevitably are no where to be found, US News and ARWU rankings are regurlarly parsed (nth best public university) to increase standing, and inconvenient facts such as low freshmen retention, high graduate debt, or 4-year graduation rates are excluded altogether. One should expect that the exact same will happen if we are to dive into entirely unquantifiable mediations on reputation as institutions whose objective quality could never be otherwise impugned are now finding that they're losing the "reputation" arms race because it's become a proxy for "quality". That's why I find this whole sideshow about selectivity to be so farcical - the term has been appropriated on such a large scale and so much weight and consternation invested in it by administrators, students, and editors that it's become meaningless if an institution with an 82% acceptance rate can be verifiably described exactly the same as one with a 9% rate. In addition, it's far too easy to trade on historical developments or notable alumni to draw inappropriate conclusions regarding the state of the present institution. For those tiniest minority of institutions whose reputations increase with distance, discussion of "reputation" may be appropriate within the context of the history section, but inappropriate elsewhere. But once that firewall is breached, you can be sure that SRSU is going to be claiming its reputation compares favorably with Harvard's. The success and seriousness of this project depends upon the checks we are willing to impose upon ourselves to ensure that these articles and the project as a whole remains useful, relevant, and neutral rather than wastelands of astroturf cited to glossy admissions pamphlets. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IHEP rankings resource

The Institute for Higher Education Policy, an American non-profit, has just created a Ranking Systems Clearinghouse on their website. This may be useful to editors concerned with academic reputations and sources that should or can be used in make related arguments. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good find! Madcoverboy (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

US Dept. of Education College Navigator

Another excellent, free, standardized, and open source for college information: College Navigator Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC Policy

User:Aboutmovies has disputed whether or not the content of this guideline is official policy since User:Madcoverboy may have inadvertently promoted it. Please help us assess whether this proposed guideline represents a standard and documented good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support as nominator This should be promoted to a style policy/guideline because existing WP policies of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL are not specific enough or always applicable to college/university articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support as helpful to flesh out existing policies in more detail for this class of articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support as it is always helpful to weed out articles that were clearly re/written by the article subject's PR/Communications Departments. This helps keep both Wikipedia and the subject from over-glorification - and especially for higher-education articles, I believe that an example of clear neutrality will be beneficial. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support as guideline (I've learned that policies trump guidelines and I'm not sure all the ramifications of this one have been examined). The value of Wikipedia to universities is to present them as NPOV as possible; boosterism destroys that and makes the Wikipedia articles no better than the PR issued by the universities.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - I fail to see a need for this, as I cannot think of a situation where WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, WP:AVOID, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEAD do the trick. This is a classic example of instruction creep that should be avoided. Boosterism is not confined to schools, it is a problem in just about every area (see WP:AUTOBIO and even WP:COI), and we have many, many, many, many, guidleines/policies to address the problem (see the alphabet soup I listed above). Though if it does pass, you need to make changes to "Do not bury the reader in facts" as it starts off saying you can't have these facts, then later its OK to have them but not in the lead. I'm assuming this was meant to be a pure lead specific issue, though WP:LEAD already covers it, thus why it is unneeded. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's exactly because there is a litany of diffuse policies that can be invoked that there is a need for a specific and succinct guideline synthesizing the various strains of thought from each. I would echo ElKevbo (talk · contribs)'s comment that many of these opposes who don't edit college and university pages don't realize how pervasive and pernicious is the problem of COI editors to university/college pages nor that this guideline is the only central bulwark against these boosters and astroturfers. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I do edit university pages and I do realize how much a problem this is. However, having another guideline isn't going to solve the problem if editors ignore it the way they do the existing guidelines. Cities, television shows, artists, albums, and pretty much every other subject can and has POV, peacock, etc. applied to it. We shouldn't have a separate guideline for each of those either. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We have specific topical guidelines for notability and specific topical guidelines for style, I see no reason why there shouldn't be specific topical guidelines for neutrality. The argument espoused below by Aboutmovies, RossPatterson, and other editors that higher-level policies are sufficient and specific enough to apply to this topic just as easily applies to style and neutrality guidelines yet the argument is negated by the existence of these specifc topical guidelines. BOOSTER isn't perfect and there appear to be contradictions and conflicts, but these can be fixed and shouldn't preclude this as being adopted as a guideline. Frankly, I would welcome there being specific neutrality/booster policies for cities, arts, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, it's not necessary: general guidelines are sufficient, and there are plenty of non-binding essays that say the same. No need for instruction creep. Second (quote): "A Wikipedia article should emphasize what an academic institution has and does rather than what is said about it" - this is apparently in conflict with WP:V and WP:RS. A wikipedia article, on the contrary, must rely on what was said in reliable sources. Remove what was said from an article and it's reduced to nothing but OR about having and doing. This interpretation, quite likely, was not intented by authors, but it's what the proposal says. NVO (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - As above, I'm pretty sure that this is all covered by things like WP:NPOV already. Furthermore, in the case of universities that actually are 'great' for some reason, you risk creating editing arguments. Mrh30 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Aboutmovies is correct - the policies that cover all articles address this issue directly, succintly, and authoritatively. There is no reason for attempting to address it separately in this context and to thus introduce the potential for conflict over which policies govern. RossPatterson (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The others in opposition are correct. This issue is addressed by existing rules/guidelines. There is no reason to pile on. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• This page in a nutshell: WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK apply to articles on academic institutions too. The general guidelines do the job; there's no need to specialize them, and only creates potential for contradictions, e.g. NVO's point about "what was said". Oppose as either a policy or a guideline. Kanguole (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Other guidelines adequately cover boosterism. Vantelimus (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• i like it in principle, perhaps as a guideline for interpreting how NPOV works in these articles, but determining boosterism still seems rather subjective when you are dealing with universities that are actually great. Amerique^dialectics 20:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• The template at the top needs to be changed from "proposed guideline" to "guideline under review" or "guideline up for demotion" or similar. In a hurry or would do it myself. Old versions call it a guideline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Changed from {{Proposed}} to {{Disputedtag}} Madcoverboy (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I note with interest that, right now, it appears that the support !votes are coming from editors who are heavily involved with college and university articles and the oppose !votes from editors who are not heavily involved in those articles. I opine that those of us who regularly edit these articles have a better understand of the need for this specific policy/guideline. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? First that really doesn't matter, or are you saying small groups of interested editors should make Wikipedia wide rules? Second, I started the opposes, and I started the following higher ed articles: Minthorn Hall, University of Oregon School of Law, History of Oregon State University, Waller Hall (GA), Hallie Ford Museum of Art (GA), Willamette University School of Education, Mark O. Hatfield Library, Symeon C. Symeonides, Thomas Milton Gatch, Eaton Hall (Oregon), Willamette University College of Medicine, Gatke Hall, Willamette Collegian, Oregon Civic Justice Center, Willamette Law Review, Francis S. Hoyt, Willamette Bearcats, Art Building, Branford Price Millar Library, Pioneer Pacific College, Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law, & Pacific University Health Professions Campus. Throw in a DYK for expanding University of Liberia, working Willamette University College of Law into a GA, and dealing with COI edits by employees at Pacific University, Oregon State University, and others, I think I'm pretty qualified to understand the problem, personally. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Listing all your contributions doesn't make you right. You and any of the opposing editors adhering to this argument of existing general policies's adequacy need to first and foremost justify how a topical neutrality guideline is an example of instruction creep but existing topical guidelines for notability and style aren't. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Nobody said it did make me right regarding the topic of this RFC. The list is to refute the contention that opposes come from non-university editors, and the list does make me right in that refutation, at least as applied to me. Second, the people opposed here do not have to do anything in the way of proof. But the classic, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge would you too" argument is all that is needed. Or to put it another way, just because we already have instruction creep does not justify having more of it. PEACOCK, WEASEL and WORDSTOAVOID could and should really be combined into one guideline. After all, I would assume weasel words and peacock terms are by their inclusion into guidelines that discourage their usage would thus, by definition, be WORDSTOAVOID. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It seems to me that you and other opposing editors are more opposed to instruction creep than the content or intent of this specific guideline because that is the only argument being espoused. For what has been a highly effective guideline to date, this is a very strange place to draw a line in the sand. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • It seems like Aboutmovies is listing your contributions like it's his curriculum vitae or something. Instead of showing off the list of articles you've touched, why don't you work on a compromise? Link-dumping doesn't make the situation go away, nor does it make people see things your way. Please remain productive here. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Sorry, but ElKevbo brought up contributions. Which as I said, are not particularly relevant (nor should any editor related issues be relevant), but the issue was raised, and as such has been refuted. If you would like to keep it focused on this topic's merits, feel free to, but comments related to opposer's ability to judge this topic will be responded to if raised. As to a compromise, make it an essay. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Not intended to get inside your mind... I'm interested in seeing how you respond to Madcoverboy's question posted right before my last post regarding your opposition due to instruction creep. It's not that I'm trying to pick on one specific topic against the opposition, I just want to understand what point-of-view you're coming from so editors who support this may look into a better compromise. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
                • As I said, more creep does not fix the problem, and I am in favor of a distillation of many existing guidelines into one succinct guideline. And had I been around/aware of these other policies/guidelines that have led to creep, I would have fought against it then. Next, it almost seems as if Madcoverboy is advocating that we let this through and say screw creep. It's that or, something along the lines of, let's let this one through and then we'll draw the line in the sand but let this one get through. But for me the, the line in the sand has been drawn, and this has gone over it, and so have other ones. That is, my line in the sand was drawn say down on Venice beach in SoCal and we are already up in San Francisco somewhere with this and other guidelines. Now, not to draw really bad analogies, but saying in essence "we should have this one more" is like saying let's go ahead keep cutting down more trees on this steep hillside that is prone to landslides, as half the trees have already been cut down. But I think ultimately what it comes down to is that some people who write about universities see a need for this, I however do not see a need for this as existing rules exist for dealing with this issue, and pointing out that other rules are also repetative only makes me want to go get those merged, not make me go, ohh screw it lets go ahead and have 1 million rules so we no longer have the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and have the "encyclopedia where your edit will be reverted on sight since somewhere we have a rule against that edit". Aboutmovies (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • As I outline below in the compromise section, no other area of Wikipedia (perhaps with the exception of politicians, bands/artists, and companies/organizations) are the knowledgeable editors whom we depend on to write the article so completely enmeshed in conflicts of interest with the topics they write about. It thus stands to reason that we are justified in having a stand-alone neutrality policy to deal head on with the issue of rampant but unavoidable COI and systemic bias. We absolutely need to have this or some other guideline in place to make it explicitly clear to editors that the purpose of a college/university wikipedia article is not for it to duplicate or approximate glossy, happy admissions paraphernalia no matter how verifiable or reliable those sources may be. Invoking the abstract policies you outline simply doesn't have enough specificity or teeth in the face of pervasive COI and systemic bias. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ElKevbo: What did you expect? Yes, the authors of the proposal come from a specific wiki-circle, and so are their supporters. All four of them. Quite naturally. Once the RFC was posted elsewhere, you have an inflow of outsiders that do not engage actively in United States college articles. Like it or not, they outnumber your group. Like it or not, they don't support "concensus" homebrewed by a small group but intended to be binding for everyone and even supersede general policies and guidelines. It happens regularly; some large wikiprojects (i.e. MILHIST) impose their rulings successfully, some fail to do so. Maybe a little positive PR would be helpful. Note that (quote) "those of us who regularly edit these articles have a better understanding" does not help it. NVO (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looking through other WP policies and the lack of non-style project/topic-specific guidelines, it may be appropriate to merge this content into WP:UNIGUIDE. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• It may have to come down to merging this into UNIGUIDE. I'm just not sure if whether after the merge UNIGUIDE as a whole would require another approval by the community again. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

An option would be to redirect this to UNIGUIDE and shorten it to something along the lines of this: Articles on academic institutions are prone editing and the usage of terms to place the institution in a favorable light. This boosterish editing detracts from the quality of those articles and should be avoided. To achieve this goal, articles on academic institutions should abide by all Wikipedia guidelines and policies. These include:

• Avoid the use of imprecise weasel words; non-neutral peacock terms and phrases; as well as other words that are clichéd, derogatory, ambiguous, and the like. The lead section should be a generalized summary of the subject.
• Articles must be written neutrally and the information must be verifiable.
• Although anyone may edit an article, conflicts of interest should be avoided.

This solves my problem, as it prevents additional proliferation of guidelines that are simply repetitive. But it allows you to have a quick summary of the problem you find. You can change the shortcut to the new section and then cite BOOSTER to your hearts desire (though technically simply citing guidelines is discouraged). I didn't mention this before, but saying the article must be "honest" is really over the top. It would be like saying the article needs to make sense. Its a duh, and its covered by the verifiablity policy, in that if you are dishonest then it is not what the source said, thus cannot be verified. But this is the type of solution that would address my issue. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this as an outcome. However, Aboutmovies' distillation doesn't do enough to acknowledge the fact that (unlike WP:MILHIST, WP:HURRICANE, or WP:HWY where knowledgeable editors needn't have a stake in the articles nor do their WikiProject wonks constantly have to justify their actions to the various fiefdoms continually claiming ownership of their articles) university article are almost always written by editors with clear COI (either as students receiving housing/financial aid from the college/university or as alumni whose compensation is concomitant with the prestigiousness of their degree). Accepting this unmitigatable reality, it needs to be made absolutely crystal clear that the purpose of any college/university article is not to be a monument to the institution's greatness, even in light of the fact that sources exist (and especially in the absence of any consensus on the reliability of university sources) that can be marshaled or recontextualized to corroborate an assertion of its "prestigious", "elite", "super duper awesome", etc. status. In my wildest of pipe dreams, the lay reader should expect that the articles for Bunker Hill Community College or the City College of San Francisco read no differently than the articles for Harvard or Stanford. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This COI passage is quite far-fetched. I understand your concern about swarms of college fans, but take it one bit further, and it's time to disqualify all US residents from editing US-related articles (they do get public services from the government, whether they want it or not). Or call the Pentagon to examine all MILHIST participants for present/past/grandfathers connection to the service. Everyone has something special about their subjects, otherwise they won't be here, there's no need to brand COI on any student, past or present. NVO (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not far fetched at all to assert that alumni absolutely have a stake as I believe you imply (the case of the students should be far more obvious). There are already two separate rankings of university's web presence (Webometrics Ranking of World Universities and Global Language Monitor's online media citations) so it's not at all difficult to see Wikipedia article ratings figuring into the latest/greatest university rankings. These new rankings dutifully parroted and promolgated by the university news offices with the appropriate taglines for unusual usurptions on web pages, news releases, student newspapers, and local media. Ohio Wesleyan University does not figure into most popular "top 10" sorts of rankings, but being one of a handful of university FAs certainly increased its stock, not least of all in my book having read about their international emphasis. What of the fact that the Wikipedia article is almost always one of the top 5 hits on a google search - has that no impact? The alumni of rarely-acknowledged colleges/universities have every right and ability to make the case of the quality of their school here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the cheapest sort of advertising - University of Phoenix and Regis University likely both wish they could always figure into the top 5 google hits - Wikipedia is advertising and advertising intentionally mediates our perceptions of value. Maybe I should just take my tin foil hat off, but if there is not a ranking incorporating Wikipedia article "quality" into its methodology published by December 31, 2010, I will pledge my editing services to a randomly selected AAU member article to bring it up for FAC. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)