Talk:DeVry University/Archive 1

message: "Information is not entropy, a great part of the entropy is misiformation, wikipedia is not in anyway a version of a neutral entropy" --codeplowed--Veritas Longa 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the best interest of the readers 

message: The paragraphs here strike me as POV; the author is acting as an apologist for Devry against "traditional" schools.
--Mister Tog 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accreditation and Educational Associations

message: I just caught an anon-IP coming directly out of DeVry (User_talk:65.172.197.33) making external links out of the individual locations.  Ugh.  Should this be just cut out? --Bobak 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need all the locations and links to locations? 

message: Is it just me, or does this read like an advertisement for DeVry?
:The sad thing is its now better than it was not too long ago.  A lot of for-profit schools have hacks and/or PR people who actually come on here and create (or "maintain") the articles.  I've caught an employee of the Career Education Corporation (by the anon's IP address) making similarly "spam" edits to schools owned by that company.  Remember the Wikipedia pillar of "Be Bold" (WP:BOLD), go forth and edit that which reads like advertising.  You will have supporters.  --Bobak 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "purveyor of e-mail spam" : does that sound like an advertisment to you?? Berchemboy 11:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Has anyone found a devry blog?  Does this belong on the external links? Hechung 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  devry blog 

message: Beware of vandalism on this page Hechung 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: As I understood, the wiki and GFDL are based on the spirit of fairness, in this regard, all the free and open minded-people, we need to do as much a possible to preserve and defend our noble and practical aims. The Wiki is of course one of the best efforts in this regard. 
We need to tell the facts, regardless of other more mudane interests, in a fair and neutral way, and the fact will eventually lead other minds to have their own conclussions, the "DeVry entry" it is -for me- and insult if we are allowed to left its WikiEntry as is, please let us review it and  minimize it, and take all the advertising from the wikipeadia. If we are going to be fair, then let us mantain the information by not leavin misinformation in that entry. What really the "DeVry entry" contents must be written about? what are those uncautioned and curious minds of the WikiWorld, who are use to visit for looking for open, free and shareable information, should read? TV and media advertising. We all know to well what so obviously this Devry Inc. is about. Does DeVry support or either encourage the use of freesoftware or do the use Encarta instead? I do believe there is not exceptions we need to Boldly edit this one. and institutions as DeVry, constitute one of the greatest dangers that our country is facing for its near future. So WikiEducators, is Devry Inc. about Education? Please regardles less please reedit this page properly and make sure we state its stock market values and its Financial Symbol, let us name its official and other trouble during its existance. Our future recursively need us or probably Bill Joy was right, Our future does not need us? I bet we are making the future by describing the concurrent history, this is our anthropoly and we need the truth for survival. Let us do our best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codeplowed (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Forget

message: Please do not add external links that violate the guidelines set forth at WP:EL. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: * Please, be aware of advertising, an external link cannot refer to a site that is recursively referring to the same entry, does not 
add value to the content, therefore, links to the entry's sites should be eliminated. 
* please, be aware of the employees and dubious PR, employees and marketing people, they do not discriminate to exploit well-intentioned collaborative efforts [like this] to fit their monetary ends. The bottom line. 
* We need to discuss how to properly offer to the readers access to primary sources no otherwise accessible to them, [I fear for our democratic system] in the most neutral way, yes the sources should be reliable and verifiable but also need to be refreshed with some more options to access those important concurrent consumers' concern and their generated feedback and information as well. Meaning this encyclopedia needs to be updated continually and neutrally for certain entries that are in progress or are effecting their histories at the present moment.  For instance thee have been many documented incidences of people being fire unjustly at different institutions whose only voice have being via their blog, Blogs and forums are testimonials, we need somehow to create a system to measure the verifiability of the statements, descriptions or information about people, institutions or places written in those places. 
* Diderot, probably would not understand how such a thing could be possibly admissible in any encyclopedic knowledge but he was not exposed to the GNU's GPL and GFDL either. 
* The sad thing is that there are people profiting from the mere spirit of the Wikipedia, and they even do not care to destroyed or ruined it as well with misinformation, we know this. 
* In many ways, credibility is what content management and access represent for the user/reader. Encarta or Britannic or the American Biographical Society or any source whatsoever in the final analysis are used and judged not by their claims if not by their contents. The WikiWay, appears to me, has super passed those encyclopedias because its tremendous flexibility and cross-interactivity to respond to changes as not other way of publishing and sharing knowledge. 
* Let us expedite the process even further by digesting valid information more wikiwiki. This comment is more applicable for businesses such as DeVry Inc. and individuals that only are looking into how advertise their grandiose, products, and services for profit and/or glory purposes, and for that same greedy reason are failing big time in delivering their promises or claims to their publics. 
* we shouldn't care so much about the individual "experts" who claim to be disciples of some non plus ultra "Sapa Gurus", because they want to inflate their empty ego so they advertise in here with their contributions, but we should do care about those many individuals in the corporate world who basically are exploiting all kind of people with advertising claiming they are doing great when there are many substantiated evidences that are clearly indicating otherwise, These evidences and records take years to find their way into the public eye, sometimes they remain silent forever because the powerful mechanisms of repressive practices of some of these institutions. 
* Wikipedia must neutrally inform, yes but its success and growth only depend in how fast [or Wiki] facts can be translated into concurrent and verifiable knowledge and this has more to do with ethics and determination than with what is accepted by the pockets or stomachs of the so-called trained or domesticated "experts" in anything. 24.90.244.160 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Advertising

message: * Please, be aware of advertising, an external link cannot refer to a site that is recursively referring to the same entry, does not 
add value to the content, therefore, links to the entry's sites should be eliminated. 
* please, be aware of the employees and dubious PR, employees and marketing people, they do not discriminate to exploit well-intentioned collaborative efforts [like this] to fit their monetary ends. The bottom line. 
* We need to discuss how to properly offer to the readers access to primary sources no otherwise accessible to them, [I fear for our democratic system] in the most neutral way, yes the sources should be reliable and verifiable but also need to be refreshed with some more options to access those important concurrent consumers' concern and their generated feedback and information as well. Meaning this encyclopedia needs to be updated continually and neutrally for certain entries that are in progress or are effecting their histories at the present moment.  For instance thee have been many documented incidences of people being fire unjustly at different institutions whose only voice have being via their blog, Blogs and forums are testimonials, we need somehow to create a system to measure the verifiability of the statements, descriptions or information about people, institutions or places written in those places. 
* Diderot, probably would not understand how such a thing could be possibly admissible in any encyclopedic knowledge but he was not exposed to the GNU's GPL and GFDL either. 
* The sad thing is that there are people profiting from the mere spirit of the Wikipedia, and they even do not care to destroyed or ruined it as well with misinformation, we know this. 
* In many ways, credibility is what content management and access represent for the user/reader. Encarta or Britannic or the American Biographical Society or any source whatsoever in the final analysis are used and judged not by their claims if not by their contents. The WikiWay, appears to me, has super passed those encyclopedias because its tremendous flexibility and cross-interactivity to respond to changes as not other way of publishing and sharing knowledge. 
* Let us expedite the process even further by digesting valid information more wikiwiki. This comment is more applicable for businesses such as DeVry Inc. and individuals that only are looking into how advertise their grandiose, products, and services for profit and/or glory purposes, and for that same greedy reason are failing big time in delivering their promises or claims to their publics. 
* we shouldn't care so much about the individual "experts" who claim to be disciples of some non plus ultra "Sapa Gurus", because they want to inflate their empty ego so they advertise in here with their contributions, but we should do care about those many individuals in the corporate world who basically are exploiting all kind of people with advertising claiming they are doing great when there are many substantiated evidences that are clearly indicating otherwise, These evidences and records take years to find their way into the public eye, sometimes they remain silent forever because the powerful mechanisms of repressive practices of some of these institutions. 
* Wikipedia must neutrally inform, yes but its success and growth only depend in how fast [or Wiki] facts can be translated into concurrent and verifiable knowledge and this has more to do with ethics and determination than with what is accepted by the pockets or stomachs of the so-called trained or domesticated "experts" in anything. 24.90.244.160 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Advertising

message: The following IP address user is from obt.devry.edu:
DEVRY INSTITUTE FON-345507584088177 (NET-205-240-70-0-1) 
                                  205.240.70.0 - 205.240.70.255
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-03-21 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database
IP address:                     205.240.70.10
Reverse DNS:                    obt.devry.net.
Reverse DNS authenticity:       [Verified]
ASN:                            19258
ASN Name:                       DEVRY-INC
IP range connectivity:          2
Registrar (per ASN):            ARIN
Country (per IP registrar):     US [United States]
Country Currency:               USD [United States Dollars]
Country IP Range:               205.240.0.0 to 205.247.255.255
Country fraud profile:          Normal
City (per outside source):      Carol Stream, Illinois
Country (per outside source):   US [United States]
Private (internal) IP?          No
IP address registrar:           whois.arin.net
Known Proxy?                    No
Link for WHOIS:                 205.240.70.10
15:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Predators and enemies of WikiState 

message: As a student and employee of DeVry, I do not feel as though I can edit this entry in an unbiased way, and therefore I won't.  But can I request that someone review the edits by the user "codeplowed"?  I agree that this entry should be made more neutral (as should all company and product websites) and am also disturbed about editing from inside the organization (and thus won't do it myself), but adding negative and unsourced comments doesn't seem like an improvement.  Talk comments in particular seem unrelated to the entry itself.  The comment, "institutions as DeVry, constitute one of the greatest dangers that our country is facing for its near future" is particularly of concern.  Wikipedia isn't meant for advertising, but it's not a soapbox, either.
Consider looking up DeVry in unbiased sources such as ipeds (Integrated Postsecondary Education Database) at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ or via accreditation agencies.  There are plenty of sources out there of verifiable information about DeVry, as an educational institution and as a company, that will cover both positive and negative aspects of the organization.  208.0.29.250 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for additional editors