Anonymous

Changes

Talk:Campus controversies

4,698 bytes added, 16:44, June 7, 2006
Impact of athletics
{{Talk_page}}
 
== Impact of athletics ==
 
Can anyone give information on where the debate took place, especially about locations other than the [http://wso.williams.edu/discuss/comments.php?DiscussionID=288&page=1#Item_0 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.--[[User:05jl|Jonathan]] 16:44, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
== Initial Debate Over Page ==
:# 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.
:# 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.--[[User:05jl|05jl]] 23:57, 14 March 2006 (EST)
 
# Although I did come up with "Nigaleian," several other writers at EphBlog use the term as well.
# The page needs to have a title. What do you want it to be?
# 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.
# I'll refrain from adding more material to the article until the board decides.
--[[User:Dkane|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. -- [[User:Ljacobso|Ljacobso]] 14:04, 23 April 2006 (EDT)
== Edits by Willipedia Board ==
In the meantime, let us remind you to PLEASE sign your edits by appending them with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> and not just your name. Using the tildas gives username AND date and time, which is very useful for reconstructing discussion.--[[User:05jl|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. --[[User:04bay|Brent]] 09:05, 16 March 2006 (EST)
== Removal of large quote, from ''Record'' ==
I have removed the following for now. I am not wedded to this decision, but am placing it here for the time being, while any wiser than I seek a way to place it appropriately in the (revised) article.
<blockquote>Present at the meeting was Assistant Professor of Art [[Laylah Ali]] '90. Ali is African-American. Professor of Art Ed Epping [http://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?section=news&view=article&idI moved "Nigaleian" to Campus controversies==5847 claimed that]
<blockquote>“All of the faculty who witnessed what happened at We're ''not'' going to get in the meeting were stunned,” said Ed Epping, professor habit of artcoming up with cutesy names for scandals. “The force of the statement directed at Professor Ali was such Let's keep scandal research on this one page unless something is so large and consuming that there was no way for Professor Ali it clearly needs to remain in the roombe broken away into a separate article.” Epping is on sabbatical in New York this semester--[[User:06emm|Evan]] 23:18, but was in attendance at the department meeting last spring.15 March 2006 (EST)
When asked if he had been troubled by any public misconceptions of the incidentOK, Epping saidso it looks like we'll have separate articles for this stuff. For future "controversy" articles, “What I believe try to use a title that is immediately recognizable, and not being discussed as fully as is requiredan acronym/neologism that recently emerged from someone's posterior.Also, the content of the articles should include the stuff that's actually INTERESTING..is Why was there a controversy? What was the extent of the vehemence with which this phrase controversy? What was spoken and the directness response of the administration? The exact contents of its intentemails, for example, are relatively unimportant.” It may read otherwise on paperSo are the identities of the involved parties, he saidunless they are "famous" for some other reason, but “the word ‘nigger’ was not used in that situation as a metaphorand it is enlightening to connect the dots.” </blockquote></blockquote>--[[User:05jl06emm|05jlEvan]] 1901:1152, 14 16 March 2006 (EST)
I have read ===Irony===It's pretty ironic that the content of this page includes the Willipedia guidelines and I think that debate over the content of this article page. Makes the whole thing seem kind of silly. --[[User:06mea|06mea]] 18:11, 16 March 2006 (EST) ===Questions/Observations for the Wiki Board===# It would be helpful if you could reach some conclusions on the topic of what is and is definitely close appropriate for Willipedia in the near future. I am getting ''very'' different signals from different board members.# 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 crossing spend more time on entries that will eventually be deleted.# Perhaps you only want history on controversial topics which do not involve students. In that case, my recent entry on the line KKK cookout would be fine, but QBE would not.# Perhaps you only want student entries about pages students that have already graduated. In that case, we would need to wait another year before writing about professorsQBE. Also# 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 title of name or quoting people.# I would suggest that Willipedia use the same standards as Wikipedia and the scandal was not generated by anything except by David KaneRecord. If something is newsworthy, then the history is reported and while he can refer names are used. # We are all in favor of having these entries (if they are to it be in Willipedia) being as complete and accurate and fair and well-written as such possible. Some (fair) criticism has come my way on Ephblog or in this account. Fine. Perhaps the board wants to vet these articles before they appear. Perhaps they should be handled differently than other forums, articles. I am do not sure think that it this is appropriate for a Willipedia pagehelpful. I am not advocating think that we all the same bottom up, start with whatever you have "happy smiling faces," I just think everybody is free to add process that there is enough informationworks for normal pages will also work fine for controversial topics. But, in if the Record or other placesboard feels different, 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 some a different process could be a page with insulting comments on Willipediaused. --[[User:Dkane|Dkane]] 09:32, 17 March 2006 (EST)  <!-- PLEASE add your comments to the appropriate section above - Lucy C-C>
05jl
949
edits
Retrieved from "https://wso.williams.edu/wiki/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/8451...12795"