Anonymous

Changes

Talk:Campus controversies

3,842 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 ==
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.
# 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 moved "Nigaleian" to Campus controversies==
I have removed We're ''not'' going to get in the following habit of coming up with cutesy names for nowscandals. I am not wedded to Let's keep scandal research on this decision, but am placing one page unless something is so large and consuming that it here for the time beingclearly needs to be broken away into a separate article. --[[User:06emm|Evan]] 23:18, while any wiser than I seek a way to place it appropriately in the 15 March 2006 (revisedEST) article.
<blockquote>Present at 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 meeting stuff that's actually INTERESTING. Why was there a controversy? What was the extent of the controversy? What was Assistant Professor the response of Art [[Laylah Ali]] '90the administration? The exact contents of emails, for example, are relatively unimportant. Ali So are the identities of the involved parties, unless they are "famous" for some other reason, and it is Africanenlightening to connect the dots. -American. Professor of Art Ed Epping -[[httpUser://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?section=news&view=article&id=5847 claimed that06emm|Evan]]01:52, 16 March 2006 (EST)
<blockquote>===Irony===“All It's pretty ironic that the content of this page includes the faculty who witnessed what happened at debate over the meeting were stunned,” said Ed Epping, professor content of artthis page. “The force Makes the whole thing seem kind of the statement directed at Professor Ali was such that there was no way for Professor Ali to remain in the roomsilly.” Epping is on sabbatical in New York this semester--[[User:06mea|06mea]] 18:11, but was in attendance at the department meeting last spring.16 March 2006 (EST)
When asked ===Questions/Observations for the Wiki Board===# It would be helpful if he had been troubled by any public misconceptions 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.# 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.# Perhaps you only want history on controversial topics which do not involve students. In that case, my recent entry on the incidentKKK cookout would be fine, Epping saidbut QBE would not.# Perhaps you only want student entries about students that have already graduated. In that case, “What we would need to wait another year before writing about QBE.# 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.# I believe would suggest that Willipedia use the same standards as Wikipedia and the Record. If something is not newsworthy, then the history is reported and names are used. # We are all in favor of having these entries (if they are to be in Willipedia) being discussed as fully complete and accurate and fair and well-written as is requiredpossible. 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 vehemence same bottom up, start with which this phrase was spoken and the directness of its intentwhatever you have, everybody is free to add process that works for normal pages will also work fine for controversial topics.” It may read otherwise on paperBut, he saidif the board feels different, but “the word ‘nigger’ was not some a different process could be used in that situation as a metaphor.” </blockquote></blockquote>--[[User:05jlDkane|05jlDkane]] 1909:1132, 14 17 March 2006 (EST)
<!-- PLEASE add your comments to the appropriate section above -->
05jl
949
edits
Retrieved from "https://wso.williams.edu/wiki/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/8487...12795"