Talk:MIT Crime Club

Personal interest in MIT Crime Club; rules

As mentioned in my User Page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dervorguilla

Special Interests • MIT Crime Club (past member & project-team advisor) (project advisor 2005–12)

Full disclosure of interests

I declare that neither I nor any member of my immediate family has a significant financial interest in any entity discussed in my edits or in any competing entity.

–––

WP:BFAQ#RULES

The Club’s activities have been reported on at length by the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Magazine, and PI Magazine.

I have no current affiliation with the Club.  I do seem to have a relatively encyclopedic knowledge of the “factual information [in] third-party articles” about the group.

If the articles are authoritative and the information is factual, should it get published?

--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 06:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think you'd be fine editing it directly, but you might inquire at WP:COIN and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation about it. Allens (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{Request edit}} - done. Allens (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Add text to sec. 3, Activities.

In 2005 the Club began rebroadcasting Harvard, MIT, and Cambridge police transmissions online.

-Dervorguilla (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 19:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Add new sec. 5, Finances.

Finances
The club’s project funding is derived from alumni donations and from disbursements by MIT’s Association of Student Activities.  The school maintains an “MIT Crime Club Fund” to support the group’s initiatives.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 19:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes made 5 November 2012

Concerning changes by Geoffrey (contribs) to last version by Dervorguilla

  At § 0: OR, BLPGROUP, POV; no authority cited.  (Authorities cited in §§ 1 & 2 don’t support assertions.)

  At § 1: OR; REDFLAG, QS, BLPGROUP, POV; cited authority doesn’t support assertion.

  At § 2: OR; cited authority doesn’t support assertion.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) 00:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR  “If you use [even well-sourced material] … to advance a position not … explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.”

• No published source explicitly supports the editor’s position that the group isn’t operating on MIT’s campus or that it was derecognized sometime before 2012.

WP:REDFLAG  “Red flags … include … challenged claims that are supported purely by … [sources] with an apparent conflict of interest….”

WP:QS  “Questionable sources are those that … have an apparent conflict of interest.  Examples … include … [1] articles by any media group that … discredit its [holding company’s] competitors; [2] news reports by journalists having financial interests … in the [reported-on company’s] competitors….  They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.”

• The group’s members compete against the source’s members to obtain financial aid from MIT Student Life.

WP:BLPGROUP  “A harmful statement about a small group … comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger [one]; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make [it] up….  Make sure you are using high-quality sources.”

• According to ref 5, the group is made up of only ten individuals.  (And three of them are identified by name in the article or in a cited source.)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes made 6 March 2013 and 10 March 2013

Concerning changes made March 6 by 18.111.90.125 and March 10 by 18.189.106.16, see sec. 3 above.  Also, the RS (Fargen) cited by 18.111.90.125 offers no support for content added by either user.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes made 1 October 2013

Concerning changes by Geoffrey (contribs) to last version by Dervorguilla

WP:OR  “If you use [even well-sourced material] … to advance a position not … explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.”

• No published source explicitly supports the editor’s position that the group isn’t operating on MIT’s campus or that it was derecognized in 2012.
• No published source explicitly supports the editor’s position that the group isn’t compiling incident reports, that it isn’t maintaining the union site, or that it hasn’t been using the mentioned disbursements and donations to pay its expenses.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC) 00:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what sorts of published sources you're looking for. I added a link to the group's ASA Database entry, which is pretty clear that it *is* derecognized (though the date is less clear). Ealex292 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The date is indeed "less clear". One MIT-IP single-edit user cites the source to support a conflicting claim. Another MIT-IP single-edit user cites it to support an analogous claim. A third MIT-affiliated infrequent user cites it to support an identical claim. An authoritative MIT source makes a totally different claim. 

Anyone found a reliable published source that directly supports the assertion that the group was derecognized in 2012? In 2011? In 2009 ? Maybe we could get help at RSN...

Or, do the data suggest that perhaps users' time might be saved if MIT News were invited to openly weigh in? (Here's how BP does it.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

“Whoever, … in writing, makes any false and fraudulent … assertion of endorsement … or sanction of an incorporated college … as a commendation … shall be punished….” False Claim of Endorsement or Approval, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 90.

A false-claim complaint does appear to have been filed with the MIT general counsel. “Complaints • Crime Club: … SAO talking with general counsel….” Meeting Minutes 10.09.2011. But the complaint was filed more than two years ago and the group hasn’t stopped using the MIT name. This would suggest that the complaint was most likely dismissed.

“A harmful statement about a small group … comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group.” BLPGROUP. “Misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal … disputes is harmful … to Wikipedia itself.” BLPFIGHT. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC) 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

More factual coverage needed

I do not have a vested interest in this article, but would like to raise a few questions which do not appear to be clearly addressed at present:

1. Does the MIT Association of Student Activities (ASA) formally recognize the Club at present?
2. Does the MIT Association of Student Activities (ASA) fund the Club at present?
3. Does the MIT Alumni Association support donations to the Club at present?
4. What are other sources of funds, if any?
5. Is the Club still active as of 2013? If so, how many members does it have, and what is it doing?

Regardless of whether the Club is or is not active, there seems to be sufficient documentation to justify coverage as a historical matter. But the article should also make it clear what the current status of the Club is, as well.

Of course, WP:RS is important, especially since there seems to be some lurking disagreement among editors. I do not have any direct knowledge about the Club, and rely on interested editors to add reliable information on this subject. Thank you for whatever light you may shed on the topic. Reify-tech (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Advise MIT not to make unregistered edits citing MIT.edu?

User contributions for 18.111.90.125:

• 22:29, 6 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+92)‎ . . MIT Crime Club ‎ (→‎History)  [+“. The club is not currently an MIT-recognized student group, and has not been since mid 2011”]

User contributions for 18.189.106.16:

• 23:10, 10 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+105)‎ . . MIT Crime Club  [+“This club is not an MIT student group and cannot use the MIT name. See: https://asa.mit.edu/groups/795/”]

Whois-RWS:

18.0.0.0 - 18.255.255.255 = MIT.

Should MIT be invited to explain its concerns on Talk pages, as BP now does?

--Dervorguilla (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) 05:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure MIT appreciates your advice. What is your own connection?MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla′s connection (disclosed 2012).

The evidence suggests that MIT itself has no concerns about the subject group; it could be invited to explain this to MIT IP editors “involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with” the group. (See generally BLPFIGHT.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose own proposition, see evidence below. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes by Geoffrey (contribs) 5 November 2012, by 18.111.90.125 March 6, and by 18.189.106.16 March 10 show a pattern that suggests they were made by the same user. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC) 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

you seem to know a lot about this school club -- and to care about it to -- considering your school days are a apparently well behind you. Sourcing aside, is this assertion in fact true or false? MarkBernstein (talk) 03

16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Which assertion? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure survey

Message posted at User talk:18.111.90.125, User talk:18.189.106.16, User talk:Dervorguilla, User talk:Ealex292, and User talk:Reify-tech (21 November 2013).

Disclosure request
Evidence indicating that the General Body or Executive Board voted to derecognize the group can be disclosed at Talk:MIT Crime Club.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have no evidence (disclosed or undisclosed) that the Association at any time officially voted to derecognize the subject group. The entries in the student-written ASA Group Database are ephemeral and don't appear to have been getting used as authoritative sources (even by MIT itself). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 08:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability?

We have here, as far as I can see, a defunct college club. It is, apparently, insufficiently notable for its discontinuance to receive third party coverage. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPGROUP. “A harmful statement about a small group … comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group… When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

One editor says “mid 2011”; another says “2012”. The cited source doesn’t say. An asserted discontinuance in 2009 did receive “third-party coverage.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 10:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Using negative edit summaries as unacknowledged sources

"The group has been derecognized by the university, though sources differ as to whether this took place in 2012 or 2013."

Four "sources" support the assertion about recognition status: a student-written database and three edit summaries. (None appear to support the assertion about dates.)

1. Database entry (1/2012): "Derecognized" (but no official actions are listed as having been taken in 1/2012)

2–4. Edit summaries (11/2012, 3/2013, 3/2013): "is derecognized", "has not been an MIT-recognized student group since mid 2011", "is not an MIT student group and cannot use the MIT name"

Two sources appear to contradict the assertion about recognition status: the local municipal government and the organization (MIT).

5. City of Cambridge (9/2011): "recognized"

6. MIT Resource Development (12/2012, 6/2013): "Designation: MIT Crime Club Fund"

Negative assertions about a BLPGROUP ought to be well supported; these don't seem to be. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Database entry corrupted!

The MIT Student Groups Database entry for the subject group says it was funded by MIT. "Crime Club, MIT," ASA Group Database, last modified January 23, 2012 ("Group class: MIT-funded").

But the group was not funded by MIT. "The Case of the Gumshoe Geeks," Boston Magazine, August 2009 ("Although MIT sanctions the group, it does not provide any funding."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 03:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The 472 entries in the database are written and edited by unpaid students. The URLs seem to be stable but the content gets modified on an irregular schedule. So a cited entry may at any time be contradicting the assertion that cites it. Happily no one outside the sponsor organization is using the database as a source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can any source verify that the group is currently recognized by MIT? Dervorguilla: do you know whether or not the group is recognized by MIT for the 2013/2014 academic year? We have one source, which Dervorguilla considers unreliable, that asserts that the organization is not recognized as an MIT student association, and there seems no contrary evidence. In the absence of evidence, historians prefer to rely on an untrustworthy source rather than to extrapolate on the basis of sheer speculation. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good questions, and no, I've found no source that would directly support an assertion that the group is currently recognized by ASA, or that it once was. (Note: the article doesn't suggest that it is, or was.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This official MIT page claims to present a comprehensive list of all MIT student associations: http://web.mit.edu/asa/resources/group-list.html. This official MIT page asserts that "using the MIT name is not allowed unless the group is recognized by an MIT department or office, or by the ASA." http://web.mit.edu/asa/about/faq.html MarkBernstein (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Student Group List on the web.mit server says MIT has 465 student groups. The MIT Student Groups list on the asa.mit server says MIT has 472 active student groups. Close enough. (The ASA-published list may be more current.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

MIT's Student Activities Office has asserted that the subject group isn't sanctioned. But MIT's general counsel appears to have acknowledged by implication that it is sanctioned.

"Complaints • Crime Club: Cambridge City Council … claimed that club in good standing. SAO talking with general counsel and licensing office…" Minutes of the ASA Executive Board, MIT, October 10, 2011. "Using the MIT name is not allowed unless the group is recognized…" ASA, MIT. "Whoever, … in writing, makes any false and fraudulent … assertion of … sanction of an incorporated college … as a commendation or advertisement … shall be punished…" False Claim of Endorsement or Approval, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 90 (1893).

The subject group is using the MIT name and it's been using it for years — rather conspicuously. Any evidence that would suggest the general counsel has sought to have anyone punished? --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you know whether or not the group is recognized by MIT for the 2013/2014 academic year? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found no reason to believe otherwise. The general counsel appears to have told Student Activities that the group has MIT's sanction to use its name; and the group's still using it.

Meanwhile I've discovered a third second reason to believe that the entry is too corrupted to be used as a source. It says, "Recognition date: Dec. 23, 2005". But the minutes of the ASA Executive Board's meeting of April 19, 2005 record that the board voted to recognize the group in April, not December.

"When approved, minutes of meetings are official and can used as evidence in legal proceedings." And the minutes contradict the information in the entry. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 02:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this appears to have been started by an "inconsistency" in the ASA Database, I should point out that "Group class: MIT-funded" does not mean the group receives funding from MIT -- merely that it is (or was, for derecognized groups) eligible to apply[1]. Crime Club was recognized before the funded/non-funded distinction came into existence, and thus was made MIT-funded despite not necessarily wanting the funding (recognized in 2005; funded/unfunded distinction was created in November 2008, and existing groups were made MIT-funded (page 25)).

You'll find more references for the ASA Database if you search for mit "asa database", since "group" is usually left out of the name. Some of the pages that reference it: [2][3]. Various pages link to the overall ASA website -- for example, [4]. The student group handbook has a reference to the database on page 15, and references to the ASA scattered throughout. Oh, and if you're willing to grant that http://web.mit.edu/asa/resources/group-list.html is official, the "ASA Database" tab at the top of that page will also link you to the ASA Database... Ealex292 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful background material, Ealex292. Are you willing to grant that the minutes of the Executive Board's meeting of April 19, 2005 are not only official but can be used as evidence in legal proceedings? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

what do legal proceedings have to do with anything? MarkBernstein (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Geoffrey (and User talk:18.189.106.16). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 08:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 01:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Parent organization

Infobox organization says nothing about the organization’s being “recognized” by or “affiliated” with the parent. Compare also Dictionary.com (“parent, adj. Being the original source”); MW3 (“parent, n. A group from which another takes its rise… [Latin … parere ‘to give birth to, beget, produce’]”).

And compare with MW3 (“affiliated, adj. Closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position «a university and its affiliated medical school»)”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 20:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 19:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MIT Crime Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/archive/x563265629

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked and working. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)