Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities
|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Universities and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9|
|WikiProject Universities||(Rated Project-class)|
|WikiProject Universities was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 30 August 2010. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
- 1 CfD nomination of Category:Alumni of Royal Military Academy of Belgium
- 2 Template:PopularCultureUniversities - check for original research
- 3 Additional help requested at Trinity College (Connecticut)
- 4 Self-published content
- 5 Women in Red November contest open to all
- 6 Change to residential college infobox
- 7 Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed
CfD nomination of Category:Alumni of Royal Military Academy of Belgium
Category:Alumni of Royal Military Academy of Belgium has been nominated for mergingwith Category:Royal Military Academy (Belgium) alumni. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.
Template:PopularCultureUniversities - check for original research
Be sure to personally contact the authors of the sections (even if they made the edits months/years ago) and tell them not only how/why their edits were problematic, but how they can properly build such a section (with reliable sources). You may have to do some hand-holding if the users are still active. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Having been alerted to this template's existence I've added links to three lists of fictional colleges (to which the above comments about OR etc might apply) and it's reminded me to continue work on User:PamD/sandbox/List of fictional English universities - contributions and references welcome! PamD 14:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this template exists. Is it actually used anywhere? I suspect it's not because it's woefully out of date with many of the entries having been deleted or merged years ago. Time to send it to an deletion discussion (not that that would address the issues already raised about the content in the articles/lists that actually exist)? ElKevbo (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PopularCultureUniversities it is in use WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional help requested at Trinity College (Connecticut)
Can some other editors please take a look at Trinity College (Connecticut) and its Talk page? A few editors are having some disagreements and other voices would be helpful. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed some articles about universities have self-published content (where they use the university website as references). While this is OK for basic information like how many books the library collections have, it can quickly turn into WP:PEACOCK. Do we know how widespread of a problem this is please? It may take us a while to replace those references with RS from third-party books or Newspapers.com, but perhaps a worthwhile project for this WP to focus on?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Women in Red November contest open to all
Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
Change to residential college infobox
I've proposed a tweak to this infobox at Template_talk:Infobox_residential_college#Position of university name. TSP (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed
I've raised this at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed. To make it easier, here's what I posted there. I hope interested editors will respond there. At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.
These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.
A study reported in the Japan Times by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.
The New York Times published an article last month called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance.
They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief. See also this article.
There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones. Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.
An article last month in Die Zeit says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."
This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?
- I would offer that none of this is new. There have always been impostors in academia. In the past the major issue was diploma mills and fake credentials. With the rise of the digital era these issues only became more complex. Now that employers are finally beginning to verify academic credentials the next frontier became fake journals and publishing. This issue has become more acute with the trend of fewer tenure jobs available and more competition for them. I don't know that wikipedia will able to independently determine whether each and every journal is a fake or not unless there are specific credible sources identifying them as one. Just thinking of some ways to address further AFDs. Is there an agreed on database that identifies generally accepted fake journals? We could add them to speedy delete criterion. Or conversely we could create a category for notable fake journals... Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)