Talk:Campus controversies

This is the discussion page for "Campus controversies". This page is where editors and readers discuss what content should and should not be in the article, and respond to others' questions and comments. Unlike articles' content pages, editors should only add material and respond to others' postings, and never make deletions. This page is intended to record the history of any debate, as well as work towards resolving it.

All commenters here should take credit for their words. When you make a change, suffix your posting with --~~~~ This will automatically record your username and the time of posting. Doing this helps seperate comments, and is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.

---

Impact of athletics

Can anyone give information on where the debate took place, especially about locations other than the WSO blog? It would be good practice, I think, to always note where, when, and how a controversy on this page was debated, to keep what is listed her grounded in the events of the past, and not the judgments of authors of what is and isn't controversial. I am not suggesting inappropriate bias on the part of the listing author here, or that thier choice was wrong, but the listing as it is currently reminds me of this problem. Can we improve it? I wasn't on campus for this semester, and don't know what the debate looked like.

If the only substantial debate turns out to have been on WSO blogs, can we debate whether controversies in that forum alone should be considered "campus controversies"? I feel the blogs have been a tinderbox in the past, host to the great debates of the campus but to some very parochial ones as well.--Jonathan 16:44, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Initial Debate Over Page

I hestitate to get involved in this controversy, but I think this sort of muckraking and these snide insults (nigaleian?) have absolutely no place on the wso wiki. --heather casteel

Also, the notion that Laleian and Ali are "most famous" for this incident is dishonest and inaccurate.

A user has removed these lines from the current version of the Aida Laleian and Laylah Ali pages.--05jl 18:11, 14 March 2006 (EST)

It's a Wiki, so you should feel free to edit the article to make it more polite, accurate, complete and useful. I do *not* think that the article should be removed. Perhaps the board could way in. With regard to specific points:

1. Nigaleian is not an "insult". Many scandals have names. Nigaleian is the most common one in use (by me and others) for this scandal. If you have a better name, suggest it.
2. If Laleian is not most famous at Williams for her involvment than what is she most famous for? Again, feel free to edit this description, but deleting the entire article seems out of bounds.
3. It is my understanding that Willipedia is a place to capture the history of Williams, including controversial events. Or are we to have just happy, smiling faces? -- Dave Kane

I have read the Willipedia guidelines and I think that the content of this article is definitely close to crossing the line about pages about professors. Also, the title of the scandal was not generated by anything except by David Kane, and while he can refer to it as such on Ephblog or in other forums, I am not sure that it is appropriate for a Willipedia page. I am not advocating that we all have "happy smiling faces," I just think that there is enough information, in the Record or other places, in the public domain about this incident so that if someone wants information about it they can find it, and there does not need to be a page with insulting comments on Willipedia. -- Lucy C-C

The page discussed above has now been largely rewritten. All those who posted above are encouraged to comment again on the current version of the article. Even better -- edit it to improve it.--05jl 23:57, 14 March 2006 (EST)

1. Although I did come up with "Nigaleian," several other writers at EphBlog use the term as well.
2. The page needs to have a title. What do you want it to be?
3. I am happy to have the page written in whatever style you like. Edit away. Make it as polite and neutral as possible. But I object strongly to the claim that this simple description of the actual history of what happened at Williams does not belong on Willipedia. If Willipedia really wants to be "the definitive source of information about Williams," then it should describe this history. At least, the board should not encourage people to write such articles unless it intends to allow them.
4. I'll refrain from adding more material to the article until the board decides.

--Dkane 23:54, 14 March 2006 (EST)

Mad Cow Controversy

I don't have any of the details or responses (including my intentionally inflammatory all-campus email!), but this should be on here. -- Ljacobso 14:04, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

Edits by Willipedia Board

Members of the Willipedia board are discussing this page and will make some decisions about how to proceed with it.

Nevertheless, do not refrain from working on this page yourself; do not wait for the board to "handle" it. Make the changes you want to see. We prefer to be advised by you, the conscientious editing community, rather than advise you.

In the meantime, let us remind you to PLEASE sign your edits by appending them with --~~~~ and not just your name. Using the tildas gives username AND date and time, which is very useful for reconstructing discussion.--05jl 18:11, 14 March 2006 (EST)

I removed a phrase stating that Laleian made the comment "to studio art professor Laylah Ali '90", since according to my understanding (from the Record articles etc.) Laleian did not necessarily make the comment to Ali in particular. Now the summary does not mention Ali at all, but I'm not convinced that's necessary. I will also add something to the ADRSI page explaining Ali's role, since right now it only makes a passing reference to her which doesn't make sense without a bit of context. --Brent 09:05, 16 March 2006 (EST)

I moved "Nigaleian" to Campus controversies

We're not going to get in the habit of coming up with cutesy names for scandals. Let's keep scandal research on this one page unless something is so large and consuming that it clearly needs to be broken away into a separate article. --Evan 23:18, 15 March 2006 (EST)

OK, so it looks like we'll have separate articles for this stuff. For future "controversy" articles, try to use a title that is immediately recognizable, and not an acronym/neologism that recently emerged from someone's posterior. Also, the content of the articles should include the stuff that's actually INTERESTING. Why was there a controversy? What was the extent of the controversy? What was the response of the administration? The exact contents of emails, for example, are relatively unimportant. So are the identities of the involved parties, unless they are "famous" for some other reason, and it is enlightening to connect the dots. --Evan 01:52, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Irony

It's pretty ironic that the content of this page includes the debate over the content of this page. Makes the whole thing seem kind of silly. --06mea 18:11, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Questions/Observations for the Wiki Board

1. It would be helpful if you could reach some conclusions on the topic of what is and is appropriate for Willipedia in the near future. I am getting very different signals from different board members.
2. Do you want to have controversial history here at all? I think you do, but you need to decide. I certainly don't want to spend more time on entries that will eventually be deleted.
3. Perhaps you only want history on controversial topics which do not involve students. In that case, my recent entry on the KKK cookout would be fine, but QBE would not.
4. Perhaps you only want student entries about students that have already graduated. In that case, we would need to wait another year before writing about QBE.
5. Perhaps the policy should be to write about these incidents but not use actual names, just student X. That would be problematic for linking to things like Record articles which used the name or quoting people.
6. I would suggest that Willipedia use the same standards as Wikipedia and the Record. If something is newsworthy, then the history is reported and names are used.
7. We are all in favor of having these entries (if they are to be in Willipedia) being as complete and accurate and fair and well-written as possible. Some (fair) criticism has come my way on this account. Fine. Perhaps the board wants to vet these articles before they appear. Perhaps they should be handled differently than other articles. I do not think that this is helpful. I think that the same bottom up, start with whatever you have, everybody is free to add process that works for normal pages will also work fine for controversial topics. But, if the board feels different, some a different process could be used.

--Dkane 09:32, 17 March 2006 (EST)