Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 1

message: please don't consider wikipedia as an extension of blogs. 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

message: There ar three references to DesiPundit.com in a wikipedia article about IIPM. This makes no sense. Links to Gaurav's/ Rashmi's/ IIM Prof's blog makes sense. One cannot keep linking to every blog that talks about the issue. Please remove references to all random unrelated blogs not related to IIPM.
I have reinstated the link to Desipundit in the External links section. The page linked to is a roundup of blogposts and information on the IIPM/Bloggers controversy, and so I believe it is germane to the article. Kunal 05:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Desipundit.com

message: # Good work folks. A pretty decent article in 4 hours. Quite good.	
# I've had to move stuff on IIPM's infrastructure to  Bad Jokes and other nonsense with a heavy heart. Let's keep this serious. This should be a factual record of what happened.
# I also took out some unsupported allegations about Rashmi Bansal taking money and stuff. More vigilance is needed against this sort of thing.	
# Let's try to keep the list of External links small. There are more than 300 blog posts on the subject now. Not every one should go there. We should link to only those who add new factual details, not opinions.	Thanks - Ravikiran 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Work

message: : Faculty information about IIPM can be found here. I just need to write it up using a neutral point of view, but I will appreciate anyone who can help me on this -- Ravikiran 17:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. I had never noticed ;) --Ravikiran 09:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Faculty Information

message: Folks, I am regular user and occasional contributor to Wikipedia. I am very unhappy to see it is being used to propagate an agenda. It’s all right if you guys don't like IIPM, but running a campaign on wikipedia is simply not done. Please use your blogs for mudslinging and put facts up on this website and let people decide.Wikipedia is not the place to create an article just to malign somebody or some institution Also carrying out attacks in personal nature on people is also not done. I want to dispute the neutrality of this article on the basis of the fact that this article is posted here for the only reason to malign the reputation of IIPM. I don't work for IIPM, have no association with IIPM,never heard about it till the blogwars erupted but I love Wikipedia and would like it to be a source of facts/knowledge and not a source of peoples opinion/agenda.
	
I cannot defend IIPM on the basis of facts because I don't know anything about it, but I am sure that this whole article is an extension of what is being written in blogs all over. There should be somebody telling the other side of the story, if there is none then it has to be me. The entire article is written using world "claims","its believed", "detractors" etc etc. Please read other content like about Joseph Stalin to learn how to write articles in wikipedia. There is no dispute about what Stalin did, but the article does not start like "Joseph Stalin was a monster" or "Joseph Stalin was a great communist",it pursues neither agenda, so the article is neutral. 
My only request is use Wiki as a public resource , not as a tool for extending your point of view.
For all those , who think this might be some disgruntled and anon IIPM student, here are my co-ordinates http://amanthan.blogspot.com
Get in touch if you want.
"Venkatesh pr 23:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please refrain from pursuing an agenda

message: I have removed the peer review notice as no request for peer review has been made. Please make a request for peer review and tag it again if needed. --Ravikiran 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Some joker deleted virtually the entire article except the first four lines. I reverted back to the earlier edit, but could somebody please check it again to correct any mistakes I made? Kunal 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP that was committing the vandalism resolves to iipm-100-233-16-ind.iipm.edu.   -- Ravikiran 20:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alert

message: It has been reported in the Hindustan Times that IIPM's dean A Sandip has confirmed that they are indeed contemplating legal action. So I don't think it is fair to put the "alleged threat" of legal action only into Gaurav's mouth. Further, Gaurav has publicly refused to remove his blog postings. So it is not fair to say that Gaurav "claimed" to refuse to remove his blog postings. Also I have removed the line which says that the magazine's (JAM) credibility has been questioned in the past. Give a source and we will put it back. --Ravikiran 06:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Threats of legal action

message: Please cite sources (if any). IMO, the identity of the IIPM bloggers is as yet unknown, and it is only conjectured that they are IIPM students or Planman employees. --Kunal 16:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies and IIPM's response to criticism

message: To my knowledge, there is no confirmation in the MSM about that statement. If someone can find it on IIPM's site or on some media site, please cite that source -- Ravikiran 10:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IIPM's supposed statement

message: Dear users, the article contains many slanderous, libellous and defamatory statements. According to Wikipedia policy, such pages are not welcome. I am recommending that these pages may be deleted appropriately. We shall of course employ all the available forums at Wikipedia and we do respect the various comments of the authors with respect to this issue. Regards. Metalmaverick
:Why don't you collect the other POV and post it here ? You can ofcourse post news about IIPM's defense, if they made any Tintin 13:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On another look, it does seem to have some POV issues. The leading paragraph should not concentrate so much on the controversy. I think the comment that it were the IIPM students who created the fake blogs would be an unverifiable claim. Tintin 13:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At Wikipedia, we don't delete articles when we can fix them. Adraeus 14:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Metalmaverick is acting on behalf of the IIPM. Adraeus 04:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article marked for deletion

message: I made an attempt to lessen the PoV a bit with the following changes. 
1. Replaced the two paragraphs about the controversy in the leading section with a single line. The second of these paragraphs was merged with the section on the JAM article.
2. The section 'Threats of Legal Action' was renamed as 'Controversies'
3. Section Controversies and IIPM's response to criticism was moved down, and renamed 'Response to cricticism'
4. The above section originally read : 
* IIPM students (according to some, PR division of Planman Consulting) have responded to the critisism by creating fake blog (most IIPM bloggers have just one post) and leaving derogatory comments (including personal attacks) and misleading information on blogs of their critics. This include a misleading story about an unsubstantiated investigation of JAM by an Indian news channel AajTak. 
Re. derogatory comments in blogs, what we know is from the owners of these blogs that they come from IIPM IP addresses. While this might be true, there is no way this can be verified. For fake blogs we have even less information. Rewrote this to :
*While the controversy was on, a number of fake blogs spawned in defense of IIPM and the blogs of IIPM critics were spammed with derogatory comments, including personal attacks and misleading information about the critics. This includes a misleading story about an unsubstantiated investigation of JAM by an Indian news channel AajTak.  Tintin 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of some sections

message: Hi, I've added a link to a page that tried to research IMI's credentials and verified its "unknown" status and allegations against it of being a "diploma mill". I have also removed the dubious tags for those two statements. -- Kunal 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'diploma mill' comment is for IMI but in the article it is used for IIPM. I am changing it  to point to IMI. Tintin 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IMI's Credentials

message: A few issues that I cannot/am not planning to do anything about.
1. Is the faculty section necessary ? The names mean nothing to most people.
2. 'Cluttered Copy' in the Advertisement section doesn't sound good. Should be replaced with something milder
3. It would be good to scan a pic of an IIPM ad - preferably one that supports the comments under the 'Rankings' section.
4. Sandeep's statement is too long. It may be merged into the text instead of quoting verbatim. 
5. Add a reference to the Sandeep statement. Tintin 15:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of these faculty before and unless there is a write-up on them or links linking them the names wd just remain useless bits of data. Pls remove them or link them. --Gurubrahma 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could chuck the names of Faculty and quote the Businessworld article to explain that most of the faculty are MBAs from IIPM, and their average age. I was afraid to upset the delicate NPOV balance that we've achieved so far. -- Ravikiran 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hadn't noticed this so far. The BW link is free registration. Use Bugmenot to get a userid and password. --Ravikiran 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last words