Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/RFC

IIPM article is being turned into a brochure

The article is being turned into a brochure by IIPM advocate Drnoamchomsky. This is ridiculous. What is the relevance of "Business Baron's" magazine. I haven't even heard of this magazine. Crap brochure stuff must be deleted. The fact that the institute actually does not award degrees is mentioned way below in the article.

Inventingfacts 12:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

BUSINESS TODAY SCAN OF PAGE 96

File:Btoctober2004.jpg

Scanned image of page 96, Business Today October 2004 issue.

I rest my case. I will wait until tonight for Ravikiran to undo his revert and INCLUDE all the other factual citations I had made, along with the uploaded relevant images. This RFC was based on a supposed 'lie'. That cannot be in question any longer.

I have also uploaded to the discussion page a series of other scans, and hope to add them to the main page.

Regards --Drnoamchomsky 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots to prove it!!

File:IIPM-ScreenCapture1.jpg

Screenshot from India Business Insight Database - Business Today rankings in question clearly prove I was NOT citing incorrectly - look up the site to check accuracy, and I am willing to give you the password to double check --Drnoamchomsky 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

File:IIPM-ScreenCapture2.jpg

Screenshot from India Business Insight Database - Business Barons - look up the site to check accuracy, and I am willing to give you the password to double check --Drnoamchomsky 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hope this clears up the mess.

Ravikiran, I'll wait for you to revert back...

Thanks, and happy Wiki-ing!

--Drnoamchomsky 18:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem

I would like to request for comments from the Wikipedia community about the conduct of User:Drnoamchomsky. He has added some verifiably false claims in the IIPM article. The claims in question can be found in this diff [1]

The bunch of edits include many factual claims and some deletions, but I would like to draw attention to this paragraph in particular.

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) ranks 23rd in Business Today-ACNielsen ORG-Marg's 2004 listing of India's top 30 B-schools (Source: Business Today. Oct 10, 2004; pg 96). The schools were ranked using ACNielsen's Winning Brands model. The rankings were based on a survey of 427 respondents comprising MBS aspirants (84), current MBAs (97), young executives (78), functional heads (92) and HR heads (76). Respondents were asked to rank 30 shortlisted B-schools on eight parameters - reputation, success of placement, quality of placement, infrastructure, faculty, teaching methodology and specialisation and admission eligibility. Based on the scores on different parameters, the model calculates the Brand Equity Index (BEI) for each school.

This looks like a model paragraph, the very essence of WP:Cite.

Unless you try to hunt down the issue in question of course. The October 10, 2004 issue of Business Today is here [2]. Indeed, the issue is devoted to B-School rankings and ranking of B-Schools is the cover story. The complete list of 41 schools that made it through "Phase 1" of their survey can be found here [3]. Unfortunately, the link is subscription only, so I had to subscribe to it, and I have taken the liberty of posting the list of B-Schools in Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Business Today List. You won't find IIPM anywhere in that list, because IIPM did not participate

Here is what the note at the bottom of the linked page says:

" NOTE: FORE School of Management, New Delhi; IIM, Indore; IIM, Kozhikode; IIPM, Delhi & Mumbai; IRMA, Anand; and Osmania University, Hyderabad, failed to respond to our queries. All information has been collected from the schools before this section went to press on September 16."

(Emphasis mine. )

So quite clearly, the user in question told a barefaced lie. You don't have to take my word for it. If you are unwilling to subscribe to Business Today, send me an email through Wikipedia and if you are a longstanding user of Wikipedia, I will respond by giving you access to the Business today site.

Now here is my problem. I had to spend money subscribing to the magazine, and I don't think it is fair for people to have to track down "Dr Chomsky's" lies.

Proposed Solution

• So I am reverting the entire bunch of changes the user made - they contain many factual claims each of which it is difficult to check. For example, there is a claim about some magazine called "Business barons". The only website I could find was this [4].

• I am also proposing that any future edits that make factual claims should be reverted unless it is easily verifiable online - that means a website link or a screengrab.

• I would also like the admins to propose what actions they can take against this kind of behaviour. Quite clearly, this is not a POV dispute. This is worse than simple vandalism. Behaviour like this is the worst imaginable abuse of the trust Wikipedia places in its users. It is also an abuse of WP:AGF

Perhaps I could have taken out a user-conduct RFC, but I am more concerned with this article than about the user. Blocking/Banning the user may not help as the user can easily use sock-puppets. I am using this RFC to get a consensus on the guideline that any future uncited information from any side should be immediately reverted, for this article.

Background

Please note that there has been a pattern to this. The institute itself has been under fire for misleading advertisements. It has been responding with threats to sue.

This article has been vandalised many times, in atleast one case the IP address of the vandal traced back to IIPM. Some users have tried to get the article deleted on the ridiculous ground that the phrases "IIPM" and "Indian Institute of Planning and Management" are copyrighted. Accusations have been made about the sex lives of critics of the institutes and unfounded allegations have been made about the critics having taken money from a rival B-School. This is quite clearly a test for Wikipedia's resilience. --Ravikiran 13:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Dear Ravikiran,

Again, I will not revert your unilateral revert.

I put all those facts in based on good faith.

I took that paragraph, in entirety, from IBID (ABI-Inform) database of press clippings. I can give you a password if you like (tell me how - it needs to be privately exchanged), or a screenshot or something....

It is COMPLETELY accurate.

Please check your facts clearly. Call the folks at Business Today if you like, or go to a (real, physical) library and look at the issue.

As for IIPM not participating, you'll find from your conversation with BT guys that they included the institute even though it did not send any informaiton, as this was a 'brand' survey.

Please check facts more carefully, and thoroughly. It is only a request. please let me know how I may help in this endeavor.

--Drnoamchomsky 18:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have reason to believe that Drnoamchomsky is editing Wikipedia as a representative of IIPM. The user has made edits on the page which have comments like "What discrepancy!?? Campus and branch are used clearly !!"[5] and "What controversy? Other institutes dont organise any lectures - we do"[6], which seem to prove this. Isn't there a rule against editing of Wikipedia articles by external participants in the matter? --Kunal 09:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Businesstoday screenshots

File:Iipm11.JPG

File:Iipm13.JPG

File:Iipm12.JPG

I can corroborate what Ravikiran said. These three scanned images are from the Oct 10, 2004 issue of business today which is available online (on subscription).

The first image shows the title (shortlisted colleges), the second the space where IIPM would have appeared if they were selected, and the third the postscript that IIPM-Mumbai and Delhi did not take part in the survey. Tintin 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Tintin ,

All I can think of is that they have removed IIPM's name from the online version based on complaints from the institute that IIPM has been ranked inspite of not wanting to take part in this survey. I believe a simple check of the PRINT version Page 96 will resolve the issue.

--Drnoamchomsky 10:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Wiki policies for DISPUTES, and would be quite happy to go through any of them, if you all agree. I stand by my Business Today edit, and am quite tired of Ravikiran's overall revert to the numerous edits and additions, based on one doubt (Business Today). Especially since he has not even checked out that issue of Business Today (Page 96). If the online version does not reflect it, I DONT know why not - but check the physical version!

Extremely un-Wiki like behavior... I still will not revert, and will wait for us to agree on the Talk page. --Drnoamchomsky 10:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)