This is the discussion page for "Noteworthy E-mails". 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.
What, might I ask, is the purpose of this page? We have all the relevant historical information in the Record archives, why must students be singled out in such a manner as this? --06jps 23:47, 15 March 2006 (EST)
Agreed. These pages just seem to open up old wounds and goes against the general light-hearted nature of the Willipedia. --08tdm 00:02, 16 March 2006 (EST)
I agree wholeheartedly. - Lucy C-C (sorry I can't figure/remember the tilda thing)
I agree as well. --06mea 00:20, 16 March 2006 (EST)
Personally, I don't mind good historical research, but these events are a little too recent for comfort, and the research is cursory, at best. --Evan 00:24, 16 March 2006 (EST)
That one of my issues too, that the "research" or whatever "facts" are presented here will somehow be given undue weight and that one or two people putting their opinions (whether or not they have any actual experience with the situation) about an event is not helpful or informative. -- 06lc 00:27, 16 March 2006 (EST)
1) If everything in Willipedia is supposed to be "light-hearted," then please change the About page. Once you do, I'll stop contributing non-light-hearted material.
2) The "purpose" of this page is to record the history of what actually happened. If you don't think that history belongs in Willipedia, then say so.
3) The purpose of this page is not "good historical research". It's purpose is to record the raw historical documents. (Feel free to edit away the context that I have provided. Or make the context better.)
4) If you don't want events that are "too recent," then change the goal of Willipedia. If you do, I'll stop contributing recent material.
5) I confess that the research is "cursory at best." But, have you heard? This is a Wiki. You can edit it! If you don't like my research, then make it better. If you wait I bit, I hope to add much more material in the weeks to come.
6) I am not even sure how to respond to that last comment. What does it mean to put "facts" in quotes? Are you denying that these e-mail were sent? Are you claiming that I made them up? I am as interested in a fun po-mo discussion as the next philosophy major, but unless you have a more substantive comment, it is hard to know where to start. I do love the line about "whether or not they have any actual experience with the situation". What do you expect? Do you think Laylah Ali is going to write about this? Do you think that the Dean's Office is going to reveal the punishment, if any, given to Lucien and Pritchard? That isn't going to happen, obviously. --Dkane 10:58, 16 March 2006 (EST)
Keeping a record of these events is not inherently a bad idea. However, the fact that they seem(ed) to be recorded on multiple wiki pages gives the impression that someone is just trying to get everyone all riled up over them again, rather than merely keeping track of them for historical purposes. --06mea 13:02, 16 March 2006 (EST)
To phrase Lucy's (06lc) comment another way (at least, how I read it): Presentation is everything. It's one thing to present facts, another to present raw data, and quite something else to present particular facts and data in such a way that the reader's opinion is instantly colored by the opinion of the presenter. Whether it was intentional or not, that's what happened. Imagine if I created a "David Kane '88" page and included as its only content, "David Kane, class of '88, is the founder of EphBlog and was involved in a large controversy when EphBlog posted racist slurs." Factually true...but phrasing matters a great deal and that's certainly not the entire story of that controversy, EphBlog, or David Kane '88. Yet imagine what a casual browser of Willipedia would take from that... --06jps 15:18, 16 March 2006 (EST)
I agree with Joe's interpretation of my statement, and I also want to say that my comments do not just apply to the category of noteworthy emails, I have also made comments on why I think other pages dealing with these controversies are not necessary or appropriate, so asking me if I "deny these emails were sent" is beside the point and not helpful. -- 06lc 15:49, 16 March 2006 (EST)