Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology

message: Since the page is marked as a university stub article we would now like to expand the page to bring it in line with other academic pages on Wikipedia.   The WIT website has been used as a base for information and images will be added shortly.  This should greatly improve the article for the end user by giving factual and accurate information on the activities of WIT.
Regarding the former stub article, and its “controversy” section we feel that considering that other academic institutions have far larger controversial issues that are not mentioned on their academic pages it seems unreasonable to refer to controversial issues on the WIT page as it detracts from the value by making it very negative and one sided.  Wikipedia is not a forum for venting personal grievances and therefore the reference to Videa is inappropriate and biased as it relates to an incident which occurred in 1995 and only on one point of view (thus violating the POV guidelines). Additionally the part about Creationism gives the impression that WIT endorses its author's views which, like almost all meeting organisers and publishers, they do not. They make it clear that the authors ideas' are theirs alone.
This article has now been brought in line with the rules of Wikipedia which reflect the style and quality of other academic pages and firmly follows the rules regarding point of view. If there continues to be a feeling that the WIT page should be different from other academic pages and include personal views on WIT activities then it is suggested that the page is submitted for arbitration before making any alterations to this page. We have also removed the stub tag as hopefully this article can now be considered complete. --Curuxz 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Stub Article for Wessex Institute of Technology 

message: This controversy is well known in science publishing circles, but I agree that it could do with better sourcing. I fully agree that the other "controversy", previously included, has been correctly removed. Here is the changed text I added that has been removed:
==VIDEA Conference peer-review controversy==

In 1995, WIT organised the VIDEA 1995 conference. Professor
Werner Purgathofer, of Vienna University of Technology and
a member of the VIDEA 1995 program committee, became suspicious of the
conference's peer review standards after not receiving any abstracts or
papers for review. To test his suspicions, Professor Werner Purgathofer wrote four absurd and nonsensical
abstracts and submitted them to the conference. All were "reviewed and conditionally accepted.  He subsequently resigned from the program committee.
I'll try to find more refs for this, but if anyone else can expand this here or suggest improvements or better references please add them here too.  Adding the universities opinion for balance would be good too. This controversy is also referenced elsewhere on wp. Verbal chat 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are definitely two sides to this story and if we could get WIT press releases or the original emails sent (from mailing list archives) those would make good extra references. The addition above is way too one sided. Verbal chat 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the THES for 07 April 1995, WIT was proposing to sue TUV for libel  .  Did that happen, and was it reported in a WP:RS?  Richard Pinch (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: VIDEA Controversy

message: The "established" date needs to be added to the info box (and would be good in the article). A quick google has failed to locate this information. Does anyone know the year? Verbal chat 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is 1986 but I will check it out today before confirming.--Curuxz (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment date 

message: As I have been asked on my talk page I thought I'd make it clear here that I have no conflict of interest in editing this page; I am not in any way associated with WIT or anyone involved with it, including the "controversies" or in any other direct or indirect manner. For reference, user Curuxz states above that he is "an employee at the institute but acting in a personal capacity and as such all views are [his] own". Any other possible conflicts of interest should be appended to this section for ease of reference. Verbal chat 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still a little confused as to your interest hence asking for the COI statement. You said in your initial statement "This controversy is well known in science publishing circles" well that clearly implies you are in such circles and since you have clearly stated you do not work for WIT then you logically must work or be involved in some way with a competitor hence COI. That was my only reason for asking since the others here are intent on making this page like other acedemic pages and with all due respect adding the controversy section would not hence its a break from convention and makes me question why such a minor page on a minor issue needs to be the one exception to the rule, if you do not work in the industry its fine I only wanted to clarify where you achived this insight. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am an employee of the French government. Please stop these unfounded personal attacks. You really shouldn't view other institutions as "competitors". There are, as I have said to you, many other academic pages that include controversies - so long as they can be ascribed to RS. WIT is currently an exception in that the page reads like a brochure. Verbal chat 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not ment as a personal attack in anyway and I think its a more than reasonable request given the history of this page, and the nature of those that have tried to add this material in the past, without wishing to imply they are in any way involved with you simply that as a wikipeidan user we have no way of knowing that unless you expressly declare why you are adding the same content, all be it modified and resourced. No offense was intended and you have my sincerest apologies if any was caused I only wish to make this page equal to that on other UK higher education pages. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok let's forget about it. I'd still appreciate your removal of the comment above I have asked you about. All the best Verbal chat 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: I'm quite concerned about the tone.  Even though statements can be sourced does not mean they need to be included.  After all, I suppose that the WIT building has a roof on top but that needn't be mentioned, unless of course the roof is noteworthy in itself (it would be noteworthy if it didn't!).  A good rule of thumb, especially for statements sourced to the institution itself, would be whether it differs what what one might reasonably expect in an institution of this kind.  For example, none of the underlined phrases these distinguish WIT from any other UK university as they stand, they are just what one would expect, and hence convey essentially no information:
:* The current research programmes at this Institute continue to be supported by the EU, NATO, industry and other prestigious organizations.
:* The International Master Programme on Information Systems, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, which is supported by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office attracted students from the Ukraine. A number of students who have completed their Master degree are now registered on full-time PhD programmes at this Institute.
:* The International Master Programme in Environmental Electromagnetic Compatibility organised by the Wessex Institute and administered by the British Council supported a number of Croatian students. Some are currently registered on the PhD programme at WIT.
:* Many scientists visit WIT present short courses and seminars on a variety of topics.
:* A particular feature of WIT conferences is that papers presented are available in hard-back book format, in time for each conference, as well as being available online.
"Prestigious" is a peacock word too.  Is it significant that students come from the Ukraine or Croatia?  Are these masters courses different in any way from masters courses at other UK universities?  OTOH a commitment to Open Access publishing is unusual and hence worth consideration.
Comments about the journals are inflated too.  I would write 
:WIT publishes a Transactions (of what? conferences?) and publishes/sponsors/whatever specialist journals Ecodymamics, Sustainable Development and Planning and Design and Nature.  
Only wikilink the word if it links to an article on the journal, not the subject.
Another paragraph conveying rather little is
:A substantial number of PhDs have been awarded by the institute, and many who have carried out research at WIT have positions of responsibility in academic institutions and industry.[citation needed] Some have gone on to become professors at some of the best UK Universities; including Imperial College, Nottingham and Brunel,[citation needed] whilst others are now professors in Universities within their country of origin.[citation needed]
(Again "best" is a peacock term here.)  Better to just say "WIT awards X Masters degrees in Y subjects and Z Doctoral degrees a year" (or "awarded ... in AY 2007/8").  Incidentally the remark about a substantial number of degrees is repeated further down.
As it stands this article reads far too much like marketing.  Richard Pinch (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed some duplication and revised the wikilinks mentioned.  Richard Pinch (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: I would point out that:
#WP:V states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." General references are not sufficient for such material.
#Sourcing an article almost entirely to the topic's own website violates both WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS (and probably puts it in grave danger of violating WP:ADVERTISING).
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IP is from the Wessex Institute - I've tagged the talk page. So WP:COI also applies. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP made another attempt to resurrect WIT Press‎. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent attempt to restore October version 

message: We've had four recent potential COI edits:
* : Note that Beall's list is no longer maintained.
* : Update of reference to 2017.
* : Note that the controversial conference was organised in the past, and is not current. 
* : Mention of conferences
The second and third diffs are not controversial, so I don't see a problem with either. The first I think is important to mention - as Beall no longer maintains the list, it is now not possible to be removed, so publishers on that list who have since changed practices won't be updated. Thus it seems like significant context. The last I've toned back, but it seems worth mentioning that the run conferences, given that we criticize their conferences later on. Accordingly, I've removed the COI tag, is it seems to be ok. - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edits 

message: The WIT website current makes no mention of its staff or students, teaching programmes, qualifications and accrediting body. It appears to be an organisation that arranges conferences and publishes conference proceedings, journals and books. Unless there are RS to demonstrate that it is an educational body, the text should be revised to describe it as essentially a commercial publisher.Martinlc (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three links under the "Research" heading but they're all 404-compliant. A quick Google Scholar search shows a few journal articles published by authors with WIT affiliations, so I'd be inclined to say the statement that they do research is OK. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a reasonable inference but it requires editors to do their own research.  It is reasonable to expect a genuine research institute to have a list of staff and current research projects, grants received, REF rating, and list of publications. The publicly-available information from WIT does nothing to distinguish it from a small academic publishing house relying on page fees to break even.  It seems that it used to have an active post-grad research provision but there is nothing to indicate that still does.Martinlc (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed two of the dead links. As the third would have to rely on on archived version, and wasn't really needed, I killed that one to keep things simple. WIT provide an annual research report through their website, and they provide information about some of their research and visiting staff. They are listed in the UK Government's list of "listed bodies", which means that they do not confer degrees themselves, but are acknowledged as providing degrees with other institutions who confer the award. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

text: To clarify the education issue, they run short courses along with supervising postgraduate students. They may not be a degree-granting institution, but I think we can still describe them as providing education, unless we have some evidence that they no longer plan to do these things. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of research