Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/University of Phoenix

message: UoP wows me:
http://216.240.154.224/UoPForum/default.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Lee188 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

message: First of all, I thank the three of you for agreeing to mediation and for agreeing to my being your mediator. This already shows a level of cooperation that will help us get through this process and come up with a posititve solution to the agreement of all. I see lots of positive discussion so far, and I think we can come to a good solution with this. Just to help simplify things, I would like to do two things. I want to make sure I understand everything correctly, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am seeing the disagreement over whether or not the link to UOPSucks.com should be included, as there is disagreement on its relevancy. The second thing I ask is for each of you to summarize, in 100 words or less, why you think it should or should not be included. I believe that WP:EL and WP:NOR both have prevalance here, especially the former. So, if we could get going, that'd be great. ^demon[omg plz] 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I'd add, Rdenke asked me what University I attend, I'm assuming to make sure there's no bias. I am currently enrolled at VCU, and have no feelings about the University of Phoenix one way or the other. ^demon[omg plz] 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think any of us dispute the relevancy of the link. The dispute is over its appropriateness. N6 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For Rdenke's benefit, I hold an undergraduate degree from Caltech and attended classes for a year at the University of Minnesota while in high school. I am not now nor have I ever been affiliated with the University of Phoenix or with any other online or distance educator. N6 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome

message: Below, in 100 words or less, please summarize your argument for the inclusion (or not) of the link to UOPSucks.com.
===N6===
Per WP:EL:
*The site prominently features a blog and a forum.
*The site's other content is mostly unverifiable original research based on unsourced "internal memos". 
As a more common-sense argument, it's a sloppily-constructed attack site with an inflammatory name that makes no attempt to hide its obvious biases.
In the end, I agree that uopsucks.com provides potentially valuable information (to the extent that its unnamed sources can be trusted), but it is not an appropriate resource to link on Wikipedia.
N6 16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Arguments

message: Per WP:EL:
*The site prominently features a blog and a forum.
*The site's other content is mostly unverifiable original research based on unsourced "internal memos". 
As a more common-sense argument, it's a sloppily-constructed attack site with an inflammatory name that makes no attempt to hide its obvious biases.
In the end, I agree that uopsucks.com provides potentially valuable information (to the extent that its unnamed sources can be trusted), but it is not an appropriate resource to link on Wikipedia.
N6 16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: N6

message: Per WP:EL:
*Sites should be added that contain “…Neutral and accurate material…”.
uopsucks.com clearly does not contain neutral material.
*Sites to be avoided are those that contain: “…unverifiable research…”, “…discussion forums…”, and are “…blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.”
The reviews on the site cannot be verified and contain original research, besides being a self-published webpage, the blog and the discussion forum are the main parts of the site.
Links to such sites are not included on other articles about Universities, and one should not be here, to match other articles and be NPOV. Cascadia 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cascadia

message: -Per WP:EL #4, links to reviews sites are permitted/encouraged. The site should not be disallowed because it has a blog and forum. The site has plenty of content without these features. The blog is not a diary or journal, it is a collection of articles that could easily be done as standalone webpages. The forum is just a means for users to enter and discuss their reviews, it is not a social forum. The site is 100% relevant to UOP with no topic dilution or blatant promotion for competitors or spam content. The spirit of the prohibition in the policy is websites whose sole or primary purpose is blog or forum; which is not the case here.
-There is no research on the website, so WP:NOR does not apply. It belongs because it is a review site per WP:EL. Reviews are unique personal experiences. Reviews are not research and by nature can't be verified. As a public review site, the reviews are as valid as reviews posted by the public anywhere else for any other topic. WP:EL allows review sites. Reviews, by nature, are NOT NEUTRAL - the neutral requirement does and can not apply to review sites because no review sites would ever qualify.
-The internal memos have the name and contact information for the authors, thus they are easily verifiable.
-There is a link to UOP's website which provides positive information about UOP. A link to UOPSucks.com would provide additional information counter or supplemental to UOP's information, thus establishing and maintaining a NPOV for the article.
-The construction of the website and name of the website are irrelevant; the content is what matters. It is not an attack site. The motto is: "Get the facts before you enroll," not "down with UOP!"
-The average user of this article would prefer to have the link provided rather than not provided. Let the users decide whether or not this is a source they want to use rather than us deciding for them. This is just a link to an informative and relevant site, it is not content or a form of endorsement.
--Rdenke 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rdenke

message: I don't like to interject, but...
Call to action on uopsucks.com forum:
:"I would appreciate help from all of you in the edit war. Please create accounts there and make the changes while logged in. This will be better if all edits are not anonymous."
Conflict of interests guideline:
:"A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article." ...[snip]... "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest."
Guidelines on EL Spam:
:"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam"
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links
:"Wikipedia articles are not (...) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."
Take the above for what you will. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside View 

message: Since Rdenke has filed an WP:RFAR, and I'm observing comments from N6 that this mediation is serving no purpose, do you all wish to close it? ^demon[omg plz] 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consent to close provided there are no objections from the other participants. I'm ambivalent, myself. n6c 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree... we're going in circles. Cascadia 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:KETTLE n6c 07:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned?