Talk:Media Lab Europe

message: I have placed the npov tag on this article as an anon user is continously editing this article and whilst this does not, at present, constitute vandalism it is none-the-less clearly written in a point of view style that does not fit within wikipedia standards of writting articles. This article does not represent, at present, the best of the community working togetheir but rather a revert war that has to stop and be discussed.Djegan 19:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) The fact of your recent change in tone speaks for itself, all are welcome who respect others. 2) I have placed the npov tag for discussion, if i need control their are easier faster ways to get it, this is not how i work; i  respect others opinions and will keep my remarks to the point. 3) When we look at the work that has been carried out on this article over a few days we must agree that very little substance has been added by anyone and that rather a narrow range revert war has taken place which has seen little improvement; only a handful of points have changed. Djegan 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: But you never gave any references, you deleted information with references and you wrote with a ranting tone, that's why I reverted your changes, if you give direct references to available supporting material, you preserve existing supported information and you write in a reasonable way, then there would have been no problem.Notjim 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: But you originally gave no references at all!Notjim 12:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: this is not a personal attack Djegan 19:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It is for you to articulate on how this could be a personal attack, merely stating it is not sufficent - been critical of someones actions is not a personal attack. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks which gives a broad overview of what is meant by personal attack and cites specific examples - Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is a good place to start if you think I have been harsh on you, I hope I have not. Djegan 23:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV: Rationale

message: Look, I have no involvement in the fight over media lab, in the content I added to the article I tried to reflect the balance of what I read in the papers and the articles I found on-line. Obviously the arguement about the lab and the fate of the lab are on-going and raw, but to say that the editting history is evidence of some sort of bias is silly. Lets talk here before making any more changes, I thought the article was even even and informative before the anonymous contributer began changing it and if there are problems, I think they need to be discussed. Notjim 9 Apr 2004 (sorry my keyboard is f/p and I have no tilde)
: I agree that the anon has an agenda, the article needs to be simplified somewhat but presenting it as if the government or universities are at fault is somewhat disengenous to say the least. I understand your frustration as I have added material to he article only for it to be removed without any reason other than fancy npov claims as are usual when anon users decide to muscle in and push over everyone else. It should be an overview of what the organisation was and its effects and not just a fantasy claim of conspiracy as the anon is attempting to present. Djegan 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If neccessary than the ip of the user should be blocked or prevent editing to the page until discussed. It is obvious the anon editor has a insight that is bias. It may be appropriate to cut down the size of this article and make size relative to importance of the institution. Djegan 17:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I might be Irish but who said I live in Ireland??? Additionally your ip clearly traces back to Ireland, a different window on the world to me. What I say above stands, like it or not, you are invited here to articulate and discuss your ideas not to be sarcastic or preditory. Djegan 18:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can see the problem Anon, you are adding things you believe to be true, that is, you are informing people of what you think is a view, but, the standard is to add things that are supported by reference, the Mind Group work was internationally recognised, that is supported by the link to the BBC site, if any of the other work achieved recognition and there is a reference, please add it. There was poor management and poor morale, that is supported by the internal report obtained through the Freedom of Information act, reproduced on a MIT website and linked to the article. BTW you are making assumptions about my relationship with Ireland that are laughably incorrect.Notjim 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Djegan, I agree that this article needs tidying and editing for style, I don't think it should be cut down, since MLE is closed but is still in the news, this is the one chance to easily find information for the article and so this information should be preserved. It would be hard to believe that article length was proportional to importance unless you are a very enthusiastic manga fan. I do think there should be more about what happened when the lab was working relative to the stuff about the closure.Notjim 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that this article is too detailed on specifics and rather should be more information about the substance of the lab. Whilst I am not going to insist or implement this it should be given due consideration that the article needs to move in a different direction, quite frankly all this editing has choked the article with references and over specifics which means that it is as difficult to read as ever, it has no flow. Djegan 19:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, broadly I agree.Notjim 19:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: There is widespread dissatisfaction with much of what appears on Wpedia about Ireland. The underlying perspective is 'all the bad things that happen in Ireland are the cause of Foreigners' This article oozes such a perspective which you are seeingly oblivious to.
Generally sources quoted are secondary not primary. Secondary sources are continually referenced here suggesting a deficient understanding of the difference between evidence and opinion leading to concerns as to the quality of writing and independence. Web site and FoI are source documents. Where on source documents is the document quoted assertion about management/morale found? Happy to have that pointed out. Try to resist the urge to extemporise in the search for a desired fact, it will make for better writing.
MLE web site has complete list of references to its work by media. Group chosen in this article has modest impact. Most people in field seem to view the EEG work as derivative (check the number of citations in scientific literature; no of citations = 0)but then they are irish so that doesn't seem to matter......
: If you have a particular problem with Irish contributions or articles I suggest that your raise these on the individual talk pages. This article is too obscure for any serious discussion to take place on a greater conspircy you have raised. Djegan 19:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I was trying to be balanced by mentioning something the lab achieved, there was this work, it was in the papers. Is there any other work to mention that was in the papers, was there any high citation articles, etc? I am offended you refer to the quality of the writing, I thought I wrote quite well and as for the irish thing, do you really think notjim is an irish name, i'm a foreigner here.Notjim 19:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: I note none of the original authors addressed the questions raised. Simply found them inconvenient. Writing an article with reference only to primary sources yields a dispassionate (but clearly unwelcome) text. Nothing in my edits refers to anything but primary sources yet are constantly deleted because of reference to some wild opinion pieces of fevered Irish press which are taken as gospel.
The route problem here is lack of acceptance of fact and eager obsequy of opinion.
: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Djegan 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon, can you point us to these primary sources for me, I could only find a few facts with sources
It is here http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/Corporate+Units/Freedom+of+Information/February+2005.htm
and here http://www.medialabeurope.org''
* The lab got thirty odd million for the Irish government
True
* To the first approximation it didn't make any money and wasn't worth anything when it closed
False FoI indicates not for profit form of Lab
* It won some prize for electronic art and a few low key contracts 
False Low Key indicates prejudicial mindset contracts came from major companies and were 1M+
* The mind games group seemed to get discussed in the international press and seems to be taken reasonably seriously (the liminal systems and haptics groups ditto, but I couldn't find a source.)
False all sources reported on MLE web site
* There was a change of director
True but this is portrayed as frequent changes again prejudicial
* The internal report said that there were internal problems - "inmates running the asylum" "hell" etc
Until you can find report all references are to secondary sources
* The Irish government was willing to spend up to 5m a year to keep it going, but with conditions MIT found unacceptable, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly.
False FoI indicate MIT agreement
* Negroponte thought the lab was cool
Quotes seem to support this
* Media Lab Asia is no longer linked with MIT, there seems to be some dispute as to who dumped whom.
Prejudicial use of dumped again indicative of biased mindset
I added content that tried to reflect this and provided references. If there are other facts, with references, put them down here and then we, together, will try and include them in the article. Here is my full disclosure, I am working as a scientist in Ireland, I had no contact with the media lab but know a few people who did, these people weren't irish but were working for irish universities, usually because they got a job here, they all thought it was pretty cool but kind of a mess. I was sorry when it closed, 
I tried to write the most balanced article I could.
The debate seems to indicate you have not succeeded
Notjim 08:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop calling me biased, I am getting sick of it and its kind of ridiculous.Notjim 10:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoidance of inconvenient facts 

message: Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this. The swivel-eyed Irish nationalist perspective seems to have been restrained now and it reads much more like a genuine encyclopedia entry.
: All I can say is oh for god sake, it has gradually been brought into alignment of a very particular view, I am guess close to some faction within the lab and less neutral not more so. I wrote much of the original material and to call me a swivel-eyed Irish nationalist is firstly offensive and secondly wierdly wrong. I give up. Notjim 13:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems Much Improved 

message: The final sentence, 'Consistent with the premise of MIT's OpenCourseWare movement, it seems there may be no substitute for "being there[citation needed]."'  makes for a great journalistic ending, but it is fundamentally opinionated and not encyclopedic.
I will abstain from making changes to this articles (due to my own involvement with the subject), but I suggest someone remove or replace it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswelt (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Media Lab Europe. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016104131/http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/index_en.html to http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/index_en.html
*Added  tag to http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/nime/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126030850/http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/826 to http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/826
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060925154146/http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/nime/2002/ to http://hct.ece.ubc.ca/nime/2002/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051213234300/http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/gurdgiec/Content/Policy_Articles/MediaLab_final.pdf to http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/gurdgiec/Content/Policy_Articles/MediaLab_final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)