Talk:College and university rankings

message: Should the Academic Influence rankings be included in this article?  talk 00:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To what "verified third-party sources" are you referring? ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Academic Influence

message: *Neutral. I'm setting up this RfC as a member of WP:HED. Per the discussion above, I think the article as a whole ought to be restructured to focus less on individual rankings, especially niche ones, and more on the overall concept. For the present article scheme, the sourcing evidence presented so far of coverage of the Academic Influence rankings is rather marginal, not too different from some of the other rankings that are also included despite marginal sourcing. If this were included, I'd want it to be given only a sentence or very short paragraph, as anything more would be undue weight.  talk 00:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To what "verified third-party sources" are you referring? ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (Academic Influence)

message: NYMediaGuy has begun an edit war to add a lengthy new section about the Global University Visibility Rankings. Setting aside the fact that the text they've added is bizarrely formatted (e.g., embedded HTML tags instead of Wikmedia markup), they have not provided sources that provide convincing evidence that this new ranking system is being taken seriously by scholars and experts. In addition to a link to the ranking website, they provide a link to a blog post discussing the new rankings, a local newspaper article bragging about the ranking of a local university, a press release from that same university, and a link to the U.S. copyright office. The newspaper article is likely directly derived from the press release as it quotes the press release (which is very sloppy, lazy journalism). The text added by NYMediaGuy claims that "The GUV rankings have been awarded a U.S. copyright, emphasizing the originality and proprietary methodology of the rankings" but that appears to be an overstatement and a misunderstanding of copyright law.
None of this provides convincing evidence that scholars and experts are taking this ranking seriously and that it meets WP:DUE. It's definitely not something that NYMediaGuy should be edit-warring to add to this article without any attempts at communication (not even an edit summary!). ElKevbo (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick look at the ranking's web pages, and it's clearly non-serious – the coverage of universities outside of the US is limited to a few famous ones to give it a veneer of being international rather than an actual attempt at an international ranking. As noted in a recent reversion, this looks like promotional editing. Robminchin (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the rankings are being taken seriously and most of the universities in the ranking are indeed global (700 in total). But if you feel that it is not relevant than I will leave it alone. NYMediaGuy (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 700 universities, of which around 600 are from the US. You'll forgive me if I'm sceptical that the University of Warwick has a smaller visibility than any of those 600, and that after ten universities in the top 156 there are no other UK universities in the top 700. The ten from the UK that are in the 'top 700' match exactly the UK top ten in the USNWR ranking – it looks like they've simply taken these and thrown them (and even smaller numbers from other universities) in the mix to give it a fake international flavour. This isn't a serious ranking, it's a marketing tool that they're using to try to sell their consultancy business. Robminchin (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Global University Visibility Rankings