Jump to content

Talk:University of Silicon Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Cogswell College)


[edit]

Per the wikipedia 'External Links' policy, the MySpace link has been removed.

It seems it was already removed by Besselfunctions, but Camaier restored it. Unless, the policy says otherwise, Wikipedia discourages social networking sites.--Joel Lindley 23:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel - look more carefully at the history. Besselfunctions removed it, then read this discussion page, and put it back. In other words, he decided it belonged and put it back himself. I did not put it back. I am reverting it for, pending the conflict check (which I thought was our agreement). At least one neutral party (Besselfunctions) seems to feel that the link belonged here after considering it. Camaier 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to be clear: you'll note that the only change I made in response to Besselfunctions was that I inserted a ref-tag in response to his placing of an attributions tag. This attributions tag is the only net change he made to the page, since he reverted his own deletion of the myspace tag.Camaier 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, however, since it is plainly against Wiki policy (discouraged) to place networking sites, that opens up placing criticisms [i.e. opinions on businesses; in this case Cogswell College] from outside sources, websites such as eOpinions, Yelp, etc...at least to balance things out. [This is something I will come back to].--Joel Lindley 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To show good faith, I've removed the link pending further intervention by neutral third parties.Camaier 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Cogswell

[edit]

Henry Cogswell College was a different college than CPC. It is not true that "cogswell had a college" in Seattle. These are two different schools, each of which was under the umbrella of the Foundation for Educational Achievement. Cogswell Polytechnical College never controlled HCC. If you have something to say about HCC, do so on HCC's page. Commenting on it here is like talking about San Jose State on Chico State's page. They both are under the same umbrella, but they have nothing beyond that to do with each other.

As another example, your continued bitching about people not having anywhere to go when HCC shut down is like going onto the Chicago Bulls page to complain about a bad trade the Spurs made. Just because they are in the same league does not mean that the information (if you can even call it that - provide a REFERENCE!) is relevant to THIS page.

Siggraph

[edit]

Siggraph is indeed well known in the industry, but I will add a link.

"Promotes the college?" Arguably, but I'd say it is merely a neutral, verifiable, and well-sourced fact that happens to expose something positive about the college.

Note that many, if not most, other wikipedia college pages discuss distinguished alumni or other facts about the college that are not "negative." Just because it might be positive doesn't mean it doesn't belong here, as long as it is a true fact (as opposed to opinion), with a cited neutral source (that's why I included both the school's announcement and the actual siggraph announcement - you cannot argue that siggraph is biased or merely stating an opinion). For example, see "notable alumni" on the stanford university page, the san jose state university page, and even the de anza college page. There's nothing biased about reporting accomplishments of people who went to a college.

If you don't like the school for some reason (from your frequent biased edits, you clearly have a beef or go to a competitor school or something), go blog about it on your own website. But don't remove verified, non-libelous, facts from wikipedia when those facts clearly fall in the range of facts that exist on many other wikipedia pages for other schools.

    • I would caution you on personal attacks, especially if you don't sign in. Usually those who remain anonymous have something to hide...especially on wikipedia, where they may try to promote themselves, schools, etc...(And if other schools are promoting themselves, they should be changed for suitablity as well).
If you want to discuss a change, do so; however without personal attacks towards individuals you do not know. (Unless, I do know you offline which is why you are remaining anonymous; of course, that is not a topic for discussion on Wikipedia).
In any event, no one owns articles on Wikipedia, as anyone can change them as they see fit, within reason.

--Joel Lindley 22:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- I have nothing to hide. I am not affiliated with the school, have never attended the school, have never worked for the school. Nor do I attend or work for any other school. I have never, as far as I know, met you. I am anonymous because I choose to be, and because on wikipedia that is my right. I could just as easily adopt a fake persona and you wouldn't know the difference, so I fail to see why you are so paranoid about people not being logged in. Just as I have no way of knowing if your identity is real, you have no way of knowing my identity, so all's fair. As for "something to hide," you're the person who said "siggraph is not well known," which says an awful lot about your neutrality. I am quite confident that anyone in the computer animation world knows what siggraph is.

Well, we're not worrying about what people in the computer animation world know. We're worrying about whether or not this article is up to Wikipedia standards.
If you want to promote a school, etc...that isn't what this site is for. If anyone wants to change the article, within reason (as aformentioned) that is his/her right.
If anyone is paranoid that the article is being changed, that would say an awful lot about that individual. --Joel Lindley 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- anyone reading this article would likely have some knowledge of siggraph. If you were so concerned that they wouldn't, you should do what i did, and link to the page on siggraph - NOT delete the entire statement. And this does NOT promote the school. Does listing "notable alumni" on every other college wikipedia page promote those schools? Don't tell me what wikipedia is for. Anyone who checks the editing history of this page knows where you stand.

Well, as we don't know 'anyone' and 'everyone' reading this article (as the web reaches many across the world)...I don't agree that SIGGRAPH is widely known. (Which is why you put in a link).
No. Listing 'notable' alumni on school pages doesn't promote the school. However, SIGGRAPH isn't notable alumi, isn't it?
And, anyone checking my editing history, must have some time on their hands. Especially, if they are going to be deciding 'where I stand' due to edits on a site open to everyone.--Joel Lindley 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

[edit]

The article is beginning to sound like a 'buyer's guide' or ad for the school.--Joel Lindley 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so?

Article history

[edit]

The edit history for this article was lost when it was moved. To see the old edit history (which isn't a lot), go to the redirect page Cogswell Polytechnical College and click on "Page history." —Frecklefoot 15:39, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

User:69.110.4.144

[edit]

In a previous revision, you've mentioned 'Joel Lindley's vandalism'...

I believe the vandalism(according to Wikipedia standards) is one who does not sign in and make his/her self known. Moreover, I want to caution on any personal attacks and three revisions within a 24 hour period, where you will be reported.--Joel Lindley 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted edits within a 24 hour period, and will be reported to the administrators to see how this edit war can be handled.

The edits on your part are as follows:

3rd revision

2nd revision

1st revision --Joel Lindley 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether or not it was intentional, but your revision in the 'External Links' section listed the complaint filed against 'Better Business Bureau,' where it was obviously against Cogswell College, as stated in the 'Facts' section.
I have reverted the mistake, and will move to have the article locked for those who only sign in.--Joel Lindley 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Disputed

[edit]

The article states: Cogswell is able to offer an intimate learning environment with ample hands-on training.It is especially highly regarded in the Bay Area for frontiering education in digital media.

We need some sort of concrete citation/proof for that; especially as it almost comes off as a pov statement. Moreover, as there is a statement that a complaint was made to the college, I would suggest both views towards the college be brought out in the article in some way.

An NPOV tag and citation tags have been added nonetheless.--Joel Lindley 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

The IGN link is to a third-party article from a legitimate publisher unaffiliated with the school. It is in no way an advertisement - there is no indication Cogswell paid for the article, it appears to be well-reported, and IGN editorial policy apparently requires advertisements to be well-marked.

The myspace page is an official page of the college, and linking to it is no different than linking to cogswell.edu. Many people who visit this wikipedia page will doubtless want more info about the school, and since the myspace page link says "official," it will be clear to them that they are visiting a site that is not independent of the school.

Having read the history of this article, and noting that you put a conflict-of-interest on the noticeboard last month (and noticing the interesting response to your notice), I have posted a new conflict-of-interest based on your apparent personal involvement with the school - not all conflicts-of-interest are favorable to the subject.

The responses to which I refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Cogswell_College Camaier 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You said it right there. The IGN article is an ‘advertisement, ’ which Wiki discourages. (So, of course, it will have to be removed...or a tag put in place).
As for the MySpace page, it’s an unreliable source…as many who have MySpace pages are trying to advertise themselves in some manner, be they artists, films, movies, etc. Cogswell does not own, MySpace. Moreover, the page can changed, and is open for anyone to change, i.e. blogs, outside personal comments, etc...
As for what was put on by me (and erased) in the past should not really have any bearing. As was mentioned before, Wiki is opened to everyone. Anyone can edit an article any number of times, as long as it is within reason; as long as it is within the rules of the site.
Looking at the link you had provided, tags(showing that there was blatent advertisement were eventually added to have the article adhere to site rules.
True. Personal opinions are discouraged, unless it is linked to a reliable source, no matter if I (or anyone else) has had a personal involvement with the subject.
As with you, you obviously want to advertise the school (as you also have some personal involvement with the college), but you will have to abide by the rules as well…utilizing the process of compromise if you so choose to have some aspect remain in the article.
As with any article you have to give a balanced pov, no matter if you agree or not; of course, utilizing reliable sources.--Joel Lindley 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT say the IGN was an advertisement. Where on earth do you get "you said it right there?" Re-read my above discussion, particularly the first paragraph. It is clearly NOT an advertisement. As I said above: "It is in no way an advertisement - there is no indication Cogswell paid for the article, it appears to be well-reported, and IGN editorial policy apparently requires advertisements to be well-marked." Do you have some evidence that IGN accepts money for articles, or that the reporter has some sort of conflict?


As for the myspace page, it is a closer case, but I still fail to see the difference between it and cogswell.edu. Yes, cogswell does not "own" myspace, but they also don't own the ISP hosting cogswell.edu. In each case they published information themselves on a website hosted by a third party. Please explain the difference between linking to the .edu and the myspace page in more detail so I can better understand your concerns, if you don't mind.

Finally, I have absolutely no personal involvement with the college. All i have done is added or re-added short factual statements or links, with cited references. I don't think anything I have posted is biased or an "advertisement," with the possible exception of the myspace link, but, as I said, I think if cogswell.edu can be linked to, so can a cogswell-maintained web site. (Note: if your concern is that the myspace page is not actually provided by cogswell, that should not trouble you. Cogswell, on cogswell.edu, refers to the myspace page.)

Camaier 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon. I must have misread about the IGN article. (I still believe there is some advertisement going on there; but IGN is a reliable source).
As for Cogswell not owning the ISP where .edu is located, that could apply to majority of the websites on the internet. (Wikipedia possibly pays for their own ISP as well; however Cogswell…like any other school, artist, subject, etc needs to adhere to rules set by Wiki; as a source of information not a bulletin board to advertise to the public).
Furthermore, my concern is blogs and comments which are unreliable sources, which also could be used as a source to advertise the school…. (As MySpace is known for being an advertising tool for its users)…
On the other hand, as to whether or not we each have personal involvement with the college, that can be debated for days. (We both, and probably others who remain anonymous, spend the same amount of time with this article). Technically, if one indeed has a past with the college…that should remain his/her business.
What is important is what goes into the article, and whether or not it is suitable for Wiki.
Now, I don’t necessarily agree with the removal of the advertisement tag, but anyone who shows a little bit of ‘civility’ in explaining their side, I think I can meet part-way. (As we do agree the ‘neutrality’ is indeed imbalanced, and a tag should remain to denote such).--Joel Lindley 04:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation & Reputation

[edit]

It is not true that Cogswell College is fully accredited. Cogswell College has "regional" accreditation, but does not have the only accreditations that count for Engineering degrees, which are by ABET - (see www.abet.org). For this reason, Cogswell's Engineering degrees have a very low reputation in Northern California. This should be made clear for the benefit of anyone interested in attending this sorry excuse for an "engineering school".

Cogswell College did once have an ABET-accredited Electronics Engineering *Technology* program that Cogswell tried to pass off as an Engineering Degree, but this Technology degree was discontinued when DeVry Instutute came to the Bay Area with a far superior Technology program. Cogswell College has been circling the drain ever since.

ps The "Town Crier" is a small "village" weekly newspaper that has no business expressing an opinion about an Engineeering School, so should not be cited as evidence of Cogswell College's "high" standing in the Bay Area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.200.141 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • Not debating your side; but your argument would have more weight if you sign in. :) --Joel Lindley 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that engineering schools are accredited by ABET. However, that doesn't mean the school is a "sorry excuse", and if they had an engineering technology program that was ABET accredited, and no longer offer it. You have a lot of opinions, but not many facts, and you seem to have forgotten "be polite", and "assume good faith". RickH86 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: 143.58.160.62

[edit]

The Opinions section was removed by this user in this revision. The reason was 'no one cares'...

I added it again.

Actually, I believe this link gives varied 'opinions' and/or experiences on the college; and, the fact that it is felt that 'no one cares' is not a valid reason for this to be removed.

Unless it is being said that no one cares about the positive and/or negative opinions of those who went to (or have had experiences) at Cogswell?

I suggest you find some way to compromise, so this doesn't evolve into an edit war, and/or someone gets reported. --Joel Lindley 07:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is not true that removing items without logging in is vandalism. See: wikipedia:vandalism, quoted below.

2) I cannot find any other wikipedia pages for colleges that have an "opinions" section. There might be some out there somewhere, but a random sample of 25 did not turn up any.

3) opinions, unless a sufficiently broad sample, will tend to violate NPOV, as, by definition, they are POV's.

4) the rules discourage personal opinions. For example "Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person’s opinions or experiences." See also: wikipedia:vandalism, quoted below.

5) To reinforce the fact that you are wrong about "vandalism" and that opinions are bad, this is what wikipedia:vandalism actually says (note: adding a personal opinion twice can be vandalism. Good faith attempts to improve article are NOT vandalism).

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

  • In the future, you might want to ‘’sign in’’ when you make comments on the talk page, or even make changes to the article.

For now, I will leave the changes alone, even though I still feel there is a certain POV in the article.

True, this isn't a buyer's guide (according to your comment on the revision, here); however, when one reads the article, I get a sense of 'someone' attempting to 'show what Cogswell College has to offer,' and not showing a balanced point view.

Still, your edit is somewhat 'saved' due to the links that are posted....

Nonetheless, in due time, we'll see if we can add a balanced point of view to the article.--Joel Lindley 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WHY should someone sign in? See, for example, Wikipedia:Welcome, which points out that ANONYMOUS EDITING is a GOOD thing:

Editing is a blessing to Wikipedia. The source of edits concerns wikipedia only in terms of how it affects their quality, and their legal status. Therefore anonymous editing should be encouraged whether done by newcomers, or by even old hands wishing a return for renewal of the prime anonymous editor experience.

  • Why should someone sign in, you ask.

For one, so we can understand where (or whom) the messages are coming from...especially if changes are being made to the article for no apparent reason, for personal reasons, or if someone feels 'no one cares'...

I highly doubt anonymous editing is encouraged, as some articles (that are abused) are usually closed to anonymous posters unless they sign in.

Too, signing in adds a bit more validity to what is being posted.

--Joel Lindley 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of people pointing out what is wrong with this article and not taking the 2 minutes to fix it. I fixed the problems, but I just wanted to say: be bold when editing, people.

Racial/Gender Demographics....

[edit]

Is there a link that shows the racial demographics of the school as well as the gender demographics? Looking over the site, I wasn't able to find any.--Joel Lindley (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni

[edit]

The list of notable alumni seems rather long. Most of the people on the list do not meet the Wikipedia standard for notable people, and therefore shouldn't be listed here. i.e., if they don't meet the criteria for their own wikipedia article, they shouldn't be found here. RickH86 (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I'm removing the neutrality tag. It appears that the original problem has been corrected.MultK (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cogswell Polytechnical College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cogswell Polytechnical College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

"In 2010 Cogswell was acquired by Palm Ventures, a private equity firm."[1][2]

Someone keeps deleting the "Palm Ventures"text and replacing it with "Cosgwell Education, LLC" (which doesn't agree with the current citations). It's possible something has changed, but we need a citation to document the change before we make the change on this WP article. Jooojay (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Silicon_Valley&oldid=1210803747"