Talk:University of the People/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: Archiving this Talk Page

Should (roughly) 3/4 of this Talk page be archived? Please see proposer details and vote "Yes" or "No" with your reasons.

Sadsignal (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as proposer. This talk page is now 143kb, it is customary to archive talk pages over 75kb if it contains issues that are obsolete. Issues above 36 Criticism are now closed issues. I am proposing archiving subpages 1 through 35 into a numbered archive, with all highly disputed issues linked up-front (style similar to the Talk:Jesus archive). This would leave subpages 36 Criticism and below on the current Talk page. --Sadsignal (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes most of the issues discussed are now obsolete. I agree with the proposer that most of it needs to be archived Weatherextremes (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• You don't need a formal WP:RFC for this, since it is a matter that is of concern only to the regulars of this talk page, and an RfC will bring in lots of people hitherto uninterested (like me). See WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I manually archived the page. The box at the top has a link to the archive. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected

The revert warring needs to stop. Please reach consensus here before requesting edits. I suggest an RfC would be the most appropriate mechanism. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi could you guide us a bit more on the RfC mechanism. I am not particularly familiar with it Weatherextremes (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone has figured it out. In case it's useful in the future, the directions are at WP:RFC. In fact, in general, if someone gives you a bunch of uninformative letters (RFC, NOR, BBQ, BRD, NPOV, GLAM...), then putting them in the search box with WP: at the front will take you to a page that explains what the other person is talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on Criticism section

Greetings all! We are currently having some difficulty reaching a consensus on keeping, correcting, or removing parts of the Criticism for two issues. All suggestions for keeping, deleting, or improvement would be greatly appreciated. There are two questions.

1. Concerning South Africa's Warning: should we keep or delete the use of 'fraudulent' from this university's article?
2. Concerning explanation of Differences Between "National" and "Regional" Accreditation: should we keep or delete (providing a See Also)?

Sadsignal (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

1. South Africa's Warning

Some users feel that the source is calling this university (UoPeople) fraudulent, while other's believe that the source is calling a similarly-titled univerity with the acronym (UoP) fraudulent. All users are in agreement that UoPeople is not recognized by the South African government to grant degrees to it's citizens.

Source:  http://www.dhet.gov.za/SiteAssets/Media/Statements/2017/170920%20UoPeople%20Update%20revised.pdf 
“Last week the Department intercepted marketing material seeking to promote the launch of a fake online American University in Johannesburg called the University of the People or UoP. Further investigations revealed that the name and a somewhat altered acronym belong to an unrelated and legitimate institution.”

Should we keep or delete the use of 'fraudulent' from this university's article? Sadsignal (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as proposer. Suggests paragraph be rewritten similar to "In September 2017, the South Africa Education department stated that UoPeople is not a recognized institution in South Africa and does not have the authority to enroll students or grant degrees in the country." --Sadsignal (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete as the original document does not call UoPeople fraudulentbut merely suggests that the University can not enrol people in SA. Weatherextremes (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete Last week the Department intercepted marketing material seeking to promote the launch of a fake online American University in Johannesburg called the University of the People or UoP. Further investigations revealed that the name and a somewhat altered acronym belong to an unrelated and legitimate institution.... Meanwhile the Department has been in contact with the authentic University of the People (UoPeople) and has determined that the institution is duly registered and accredited by the relevant US authorities. It's very clear that they're not calling UoPeople fraudulent, though they do later say that it isn't accredited to provide degrees in South Africa. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So, after looking at this some more, is there any reason at all to mention that UoPeople isn't accredited in South Africa? Is it advertising itself in South Africa? Are there independent sources discussing how it isn't accredited in South Africa? It seems that the only reason this was brought up in the first place was because of some scammers pretending to be UoPeople. The only source for this section is a primary source, which fails to establish any encyclopedic relevance. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

UoPeople is an American university. They never claimed to be a South African university. If foreign exchange students decide to attend an American school and their home country complains they have no campus on foreign soil, what does that have to do with the American school? This information should be included in articles related to South Africa, I don't see how the information is relevant to an American school --Sadsignal (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reword er I would actually keep this in the article for informational purposes but make it clear there is an imposter. If someone is impersonating the legitimate uni fraudulently, that is actually extremely useful information - certainly to anyone in S.Africa who is on the recieving end of the bogus materials and googles them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

UoPeople (not UoP, the hypothetical imposter) is not recognized by the government of South Africa, so its degrees are invalid (in South Africa). --37.162.31.225 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country."

Check carefully that "unlicensed to operate in this country" - Doesn't relate to online enrollment or validity/credibility of the degree. This simply indicates the university can't have any kind of physical establishment in South Africa. This is applicable to all online universities. For instance, Harvard doesn't have a physical presence in South Africa. Would you say Harvard degree is invalid to South African universities? Same for nationally accredited universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.70 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Harvard has nothing to do with this article. When the government of South Africa states that a degree from Harvard is not recognized in the country, this piece of information will be added to Harvard's article. However, their statements says that University of the People (just like the hypothetical clones) and their degrees are not recognized. --37.162.31.225 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. This statement applies to all online universities from around the world.Obviously they dont have a specific license to operate in each and every country. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the statement specifically talks about UoPeople and UoP, not "all online universities from around the world". --

37.162.31.225 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC) If you clone Harvard and establish a university in South Africa they will issue the same warning, isn't it? It's not much complex to understand that UoPeople was highlighted because it was cloned. This is not the section for arguments, please state your vote and reason. Please make your vote bold and include your signature. So far we have 3 for Delete, 1 for Reword. Thank you.--Sadsignal (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this is a Request for Comments, not a vote.

Do we have enough information about this? Perhaps we should be looking for more sources. https://www.businesslive.co.za/fm/fm-fox/2017-09-28-education-department-warns-new-university-is-fraudulent/ appears to be one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reword - Summoned by bot. You've buried the lede. The info that should be in the article's history section (not criticism, because it isn't) is:

In September 2017, the South African government warned its citizens of a fraudulent university called UoP that was apparently designed to trick users into confusing it with University of the People. 

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This information has now been added to the history. --Sadsignal (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

In light of this article https://www.skillsportal.co.za/content/government-withdraws-warning-about-university-people I suggest we change the criticism section accordingly. Weatherextremes (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Explanation of Differences Between “National” and “Regional” Accreditation

National and Regional Accreditation is equal in the eyes of the US Department of Education, however it may not be equal in the eyes of all Regionally Accredited institutions for transfer credit. Since Wikipedia does not make it a requirement to differentiate the two on every Nationally Accredited school; an alternative has been proposed as a See Also link to Regional accreditation vs. national accreditation.

Should we keep or delete (providing a See Also)? Thank you all for your input. Sadsignal (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as proposer, supports See Also implemented. --Sadsignal (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated: After consideration of each individual National & Regional Accreditation agency listed via https://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/agencies.aspx, the USDE recognizes them equally. The only difference between National and Regional is by location of an Institution and the types of degrees granted per each accrediting body. My vote for Delete still stands, however a "See Also" may not be necessary in light of this information. --Sadsignal (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete while I also support providing a See Also since both accreditations are equal according to US Department of Education Weatherextremes (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope you guys are kidding. National and regional accreditations are not equal (otherwise it wouldn't make sense to distinguish between the two kinds of accreditation); in fact, they are issued by different agencies on the grounds of different criteria: https://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/agencies.aspx Though a national-accredited school is technically accredited, it doesn't meet the stricter criteria used by regional-accrediting agencies. The two accreditations are not equivalent and not interchangeable. --37.162.31.225 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please state your vote and reason. Please make your vote bold and include your signature. Thank you. --Sadsignal (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RFCs are not "votes", so people shouldn't be voting. Formatting conventions like bolding are merely for convenience.

My comment – seeing that this is a Request for "Comments" – is that the two accreditation systems are only equal in certain senses. Specifically, the US Department of Education recognizes them as being equal for people who are applying for federal financial aid. I think the sensible thing to do is to link to National accreditation in the article where that term is already mentioned.

If this specific school has been criticized for having untransferrable credits (e.g., you take a basic English class with them, and run-of-the-mill state universities or community colleges won't let you transfer that), then I think that should be specifically called out as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoops I thanked the wrong person, meant to thank you for your explanation of RfCs, I understand now. The article has been updated with concern for transfer credit. Thank you for your comments. --Sadsignal (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment - summoned by bot. It's not the nominator's fault, but because the contentious text was removed after this was posted, this is a very vague RfC. I had to go to the history section to find this:

Besides, in the United States, UoPeople's DEAC accreditation, which is only valid for online degrees and is not regionally accredited, does not guarantee that degrees granted qualify students for state licensure, nor does it guarantee that courses and credits are recognized by major colleges or universities: according to the National Center for Education Statistics of the United States Department of Education, only 4% of credit transfers occur from a nationally accredited college to a regionally accredited college.

I'm assuming this has become an issue because this university is nationally accredited, but not regionally? Then the criticism statement could be something simpler like:

University of the People is a nationally accredited online university, but is not regionally accredited. As with all similar universities, this accreditation may affect student qualification for state licensure, and whether courses and credits are recognized by major colleges or universities.

Interested readers can then follow the links to learn more. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your input about voting above, I understand. You are correct that UoPeople is Nationally Accredited. As it stands now, there have been no sources that state that UoPeople credits do not transfer. Regarding National vs. Regional, there are Regionally Accredited schools that consider Nationally Accredited degrees for transfer and admittance such as The University of West Florida, Excelsior College, and University of Michigan. The concern with credit transferability from any school/too any school is a case-by-case basis, and also a course-by-course basis if they meet similar criteria. Due to this abstraction, what are your thoughts? --Sadsignal (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the information that UoPeople is Nationally Accredited should be in the lead? --Sadsignal (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think my verbiage still works fine - "...accreditation MAY affect student qualification..." - the reader needs to do his/her homework. Nationally accredited (with Wiki-link) can be in the lede, but most people don't know the difference - it's counter-intuitive. National sounds better than regional, but it's apparently not. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added the information to reflect your suggestion, with some minor changes to where regional accreditation is mentioned in the second sentence. Feel free to let me know if you disagree with my version.--Sadsignal (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

References

UNHCR on UoPeople

Here is also an interesting link from UNHCR listing the UoPeople scholarships for refugees on their site http://www.unhcr.org/withrefugees/map/

I think this also needs to go in the article Weatherextremes (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Good find. I also added these sources https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-students-idUSKBN19A236 and https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36738442 that the UNHCR suggests reading, replacing the Times Higher Education source which can't be read without a subscription. Feel free to revert and fix my edit if you disagree --Sadsignal (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

IB and UoPeople M.Ed

My edit on the partnership between IB and UoPeople was reverted. They are secondary sources to UoPeople which give relevant information so I think they should be there

[1] , [2] Weatherextremes (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have also added a new secondary source in Spanish confirming this [3] Weatherextremes (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they appear to be based on press releases, so are not independent secondar6 sources. The content is also promotional in to e, which of course is normal for this article. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish source from Techoempresa is not a press release it is a reliable independent secondary source Weatherextremes (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I see now that the Technoempresa source is indeed based on a press release but i dont see how the other sources below are press releases Weatherextremes (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted secondary sources

Apart from the sources that come from press releases, 3 more independent secondary sources were reverted

1. The source from IB on the student number count [4]

2. The source for the DEAC accreditation of the MBA [5]

3. The source regarding the UoPeople ranking. [6]

The sources are legit and should be reinstated Weatherextremes (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok I dont get it, how is the India Times source based on a press release as well? Guy keeps reverting my edits without explaining how the above 3 sources, including the latest one from India Times are press releases or based on them. Am I missing something? Please respond Guy Weatherextremes (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Source 1 is primary and affiliated. Source 2 is a commercial entity with no evidence of meeting RS. Source 3 also has no evidence of meeting RS. Try proposing edits here first, because right now you look like you are working for their PR department. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me you that you are rather negatively biased to UoPeople and this why it probably seems to you that I am working for their PR (a comment which I dont appreciate tbh). The first source is not primary to UoPeople since it details the IB conference in Vienna. Also you have not explained why the India Times source that you have repeatedly reverted is not a valid one. Here is the source again [7]. So I am proposing at least for the India Times sources to be included in the article for the MBA DEAC accreditation Weatherextremes (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Student count

Also I notice that you have dismissed the student count by UoPeople when for example in the article about Harvard University we accept as a valid source what Harvard itself is saying about its student number. So, why the extra scrutiny on UoPeople in particular? Therefore, I propose we accept the 17.038 number with the source coming from UoPeople as per the Harvard example Weatherextremes (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact now that I am checking the same applies also for the Stanford University article an many other Universities. It seems that it is a standard practice in wikipedia to quote the numbers coming from the institution itself. So I will add as source what UoPeople is saying about their numbers as per the examples of many wikipedia articles on Universities Weatherextremes (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Source on M.Ed.

I am proposing that we use as a source that is not based on press releases the FAQ by IB regarding the M.Ed. program by UoPeople.Weatherextremes (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

https://www.ibo.org/contentassets/f207a1bb1207488d95e88c4a2268a839/ib-uop-en.pdf

Masters of Education Programme Launched - Addition

Hi, I work for UoPeople. We have just launched a new Masters of Education Programme on September 4th 2018 Please can you add it to our Wiki page Here is the link to the press release: also here is another aricle talking about it

Also might be worth also adding our Health Science degree launched on May 3rd 2016. Here is the link:

Nick (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So, please, do not contribute to this article, there's enough ads here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

References

This is a joke, you mention your own site as a proof...

We will ask Simone Biles, by mail, and you, who are paid to advertises University of the People, be aware that in case it's a lie, the whole page you promote will look like a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source (evidence-based.review)

I see this source [8] has been used a few times in the past for UoPeople. I would like to advise caution when using this source since I recently came across with the sources below that speak to its unreliable nature:

[9] [10]

Basically, it is a defamation site targeting Universities and students that should not be used anywhere in wikipedia as a reference. Weatherextremes (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

He has also been known to vandalize wikipedia, for which he is banned.[11][12] He specifically targets Universities and female academics in his scams. You can read more about this from Rolling Stone Italia.[13] His scamming websites should not be used as a source anywhere on Wikipedia. Sadsignal (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The picture looks like a photomontage

"UoPeople President Shai Reshef and UoPeople Provost David Cohen". --37.161.23.201 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute

I have reversed heavy editing. This seems a content dispute issue. The history section lists important historical events for the University they should not go. It is not a matter of news but milestones in the history of the University. Also as stated above the UNHCR source mentions the scholarships. The screenshot can be found in the Rankings section of this page. Please do not edit until there is consensus Weatherextremes (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not an extensive archive of every single thing that has ever occurred in the history of the university. The material that was removed doesn't seem to be historically significant. Please see WP:DUE and WP:NOT for discussion of these ideals in Wikipedia.

And please point out specifically where the UNHCR source mentions this institution; I can't locate it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. I will add the Advert template. --37.161.37.221 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Elkevbo, here is the UNHCR link https://www.unhcr.org/withrefugees/map/. If you go to the map and click on California you will see this: https://imgur.com/a/Q0ksAcC. An alternative suggestion for the history section could be the creation of a separate section for articulation agreements, the ISIC award,4Afrika initiative etc as Robminchin suggests. I have asked Robinminchin to join us here Weatherextremes (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Weatherextremes, see WP:CANVASS. You're a single-purpose account devoted to promting UoP, and I think it is time you were topic banned. Guy (help!) 10:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Guy, no i am not a single purpose account. I have been in wikipedia for 10 years and I have edited mostly on weather articles. I am not promoting UoPeople but contributing constructively in terms of quality. I have made a lot of research around UoPeople since I find its mission very interesting Weatherextremes (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction: New Member

Hi everyone, my name is Kiera and I am the Content Manager at University of the People. I will be monitoring this page and might make suggestions at times that I hope you'd be happy to help change. Thanks! --KieraLewison (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Kiera! Very nice having you here.I would like to take this opportunity and ask you if there is an independent source (not from UoPeople) that we can confirm the University has received eligibility to apply for regional accreditation? Weatherextremes (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

When the institution receives regional accreditation, you can add that piece of information. Otherwise you imply that the institution has been regionally accredited, while it hasn't. --37.161.92.42 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, a good source can inform readers that UoPeople is in the process of regional accreditation not that it is accredited. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This might be of help to you: https://www.uopeople.edu/student-experience/quality/accreditation/ --KieraLewison (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.254.36 (talk)

"History" section

The current History section is a list of partnerships. Is this an encyclopedic way to write an History section? --37.161.92.42 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

very few things in this article are encyclopaedic. Guy (help!) 17:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we could create a section of an articulation agreements which is valid info for a University.Weatherextremes (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

link to the article of regional vs national accreditation

I suggest adding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_accreditation#Regional_accreditation_vs._national_accreditation to the "see also" of the article. People who are not from the US may not know about the difference and the meaning of national accreditation. This is vital information regarding UoPeople. I also suggest mentioning explicitly that currently, it has no regional accreditation. That is important because people come to Wikipedia to check about this university and they need to know the implication of having a degree from a nonregional accreditated university. Especially since in the US many university master program demand that you have a bachelor's degree from a regional accreditated university.

I know it has been part of the article in the past and it has been removed some time. I actually learn about this difference from the article and it really helped me to understand where the university stands and what are the problems. So I do hope about mention that it has no regional accreditation and a link to the Wikipedia article that explain what does it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.124.150.21 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Who wrote this superb advertisement article?

Wikipedia is full of advertisement for scammers. That's a shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!

University of the People is a nationally accredited online university in the United States

Answer:

"University of the People (UoPeople) is accredited? True… but with very limited accreditation! Truth: first of all, University of the People is not regionally accredited in the US. Regional accreditation is a reputable form of American accreditation. For example, it allows you to transfer credits from an institution to others, or to qualify for state licensure.

On the other hand, UoPeople's non-regional accreditation — DEAC, a previously defunct national accreditation, and now only valid for online degrees — is pretty bad, which is why all credits will not transfer to most major colleges or universities and in most cases will not qualify you for state licensure.

Remember: in the USA, regional accreditation is the best accreditation for a college and/or a university, while the so-called "national accreditations" have a very bad reputation and are sometimes questionable."

Source: https://evidence-based.review

What is an "educational entrepreneur"? Someones who make money with education. Oh!!!! I through it was tuition-free, and that they were all volunteers....

"Although the university has no campus[7] due to its online distance learning nature, it uses a shared office in California as an office of admission."

Rather because it's an Israeli-based firm.

" Yale Law School's Information Society Project (ISP) entered into a research partnership with University of the People, for the study of education over digital networks and social software platforms.[9] In 2011, the university formed a partnership with the New York University at Abu Dhabi. [10] In February 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the University of the People a grant of $613,282 for the purposes of helping the university earn national accreditation (...) , the university signed an articulation agreement with the University of California, Berkeley regarding top associate degree graduates."

I will ask all of that schools if it's true.

"In March 2016, the university began offering an online MBA,"

What is the value of that "MBA"? A real one or a piece of paper, I still waiting to see people with this "degree" with high job positions... The MBA is not accredited by any business school accreditation bodies

"In 2017 Olympian Simone Biles became a student and a spokeswoman for the school"

That seems totally fake. And the source are links from.... University of the people.... We need to send a mail to S. Biles to have a confirmation.

Wikipedia is ridiculous, with so many attacks and complaints, there's no criticism section. What a joke......

do you have any evidence or reliable source that support your claim that it is an Israeli-based firm?

Because the fact that it has been created by Israeli, doesn't mean that it is an Israeli company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.124.150.21 (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

MOOC template

Hey ElKevbo, why have you removed the MOOC template and the categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.190.112 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The MOOC template was poorly and confusingly named; I've renamed it and restored it to this article.

The categories remain inappropriate for this article. This is a university, not an educational technology company. Nor is this an OER or a website. ElKevbo (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey ElKevbo, thanks for the response and it makes sense. I agree that it doesn't belong to those categories. However, it should explicitly mention that it has no regional accreditation (at least currently). This is since when it comes to American university there is a big difference and people outside the US doesn't know this necessarily. People come to Wikipedia as the first gate for verified knowledge. This is information that the article should include. Otherwise, it won't show all the pictures and can even mislead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.190.112 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey ElKevbo, I thought about this, and in a way the University of the People is an education website, just like Coursera and Edx.

Rankings

I noticed a user removed the rankings section. please refrain from doing so in the future as webometrics is a valid way of ranking universities.

Weatherextremes (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do you remove the fees? --37.161.23.201 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Because its a wikipedia article not an advertisement. Please read wikipedia rules on ads Weatherextremes (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You keep advertising non-existent "scholarships". Please read Wikipedia rules on ads. --37.163.242.108 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Scholarships are properly linked according to the UN and the location is not a P.O box. The links are there for both. Don't edit again disruptively. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, according to the UN there are no scholarships: https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-website/fraud-alert/index.html and the "location" is a shared PO box. Don't edit again disruptively. --37.163.242.108 (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually there are according to UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/withrefugees/map/ and no its not a P.O box.The source on history sections mentions about the location as an office. https://imgur.com/a/Q0ksAcC Btw your fixation on specifics like the po box and scholarships has many commonalities with the scamming website from Italy.Weatherextremes (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The history section currently reads like a newsfeed rather than a history of the institution. I would recommend at the very least creating a separate section for articulation agreements and losing them there rather than under history. If the ISIC award is notable, link to its article, otherwise remove it. Similarly for the 4Afrika initiative. If they don't have their own articles, they probably aren't notable enough to be worth mentioning. The events that actually are milestones will then be less swamped with trivia and will be more visible as a result. Robminchin (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robminchin, I guess it does make sense!Please see content dispute section where I address your proposal Weatherextremes (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Examples of University wiki articles that include the webometrics ranking : National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Namibia University, ITMO University, Technological University of the Philippines, University of Cyprus and many many others Weatherextremes (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

On top of that Webometric is the only exhaustive ranking system that includes many Universities (and the only one to include UoPeople) so readers can readily make the comparisons Weatherextremes (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

missing regional accerditation

Hey ElKevbo,

In my opinion, it is very important to mention that they currently don't have regional accreditation. This is because this is an American university and in the US it makes a big difference if the university has a regional accreditation or missing it. It is an impact if people can continue to master a degree in other universities for example. My suggestion is to put it back. If you have any objection then please write it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5905:EF00:C5B5:C7FE:6653:EE7E (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that say that regional accreditation is more important than national accreditation; be sure to address the fact that regional accreditation was recently abolished by the U.S. Department of Education with all accreditors now able to accredit institutions in any location. ElKevbo (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey ElKevbo, here is a reliable source that mentions the huge difference between the two types of accreditations.

https://www.edsmart.org/regional-vs-national-accreditation/

As for " regional accreditation was recently abolished by the U.S. Department of Education", I have not found any source to support that claim. Feel free to give a source that mentions this abolition. Otherwise, we can ignore this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5905:1A00:D55D:FDE:7A5F:4D51 (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is another source of the important difference between the two types of accreditations: https://www.online.drexel.edu/news/national-vs-regional-accreditation.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5905:1A00:D55D:FDE:7A5F:4D51 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

EDsmart is clearly not a reliable source; it's one of hundreds of identical websites that exists solely to sell advertising to colleges and universities who are trying to drum up enrollment in online courses and programs. As a higher ed scholar, I also think the specific webpage that you've cited is misleading and vastly oversells the (previous) differences between these two different kinds of accreditation.

ED's elimination of the distinction between regional and national accreditation, eliminating the traditional borders of the regional accreditors, is relatively new; it happened last November so a lot of webpages and documents probably aren't yet updated (especially as most of us had been focused on other things in a COVID-19 environment with some more pressing priorities and stresses). So far, only two of the regional accreditors - Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Senior College and University Commission and Middle States Commission on Higher Education - have explicitly announced intentions to expand beyond their traditional geographic boundaries. ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

UNESCO source

I noticed that an editor removed a source from UNESCO itself and not UoPeople regarding the COVID-19 response. The source is independent from UoPeople and should stay Weatherextremes (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that this source is reliable and independent of the subject.

Additionally, it would be helpful if you reviewed WP:BRD and WP:EW; if you add new information to an article and another editor removes it, you are not entitled to begin an edit war to retain the information. ElKevbo (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The source is from UNESCO itself and this is all the evidence needed, please do not revert again as this is a credible source from a reputable organization Weatherextremes (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't own this article and you don't get to dictate to other editors what they can and cannot do.

Answer the question posed above: What specific evidence do you have that the source you have cited is reliable? The specific website you have cited appears to have information written by the subject and not UNESCO. In fact, I cannot find any authorship information whatsoever about that webpage. If we don't know anything concrete about the authorship of the source, how can we make any claims about its reliability? ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a question at WP:RSN; please participate in that discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain with accusations that the page is my own and I most certainly don't dictate anything . I would appreciate it if you toned it down Weatherextremes (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring to insert new information while a discussion is taking place - a discussion that is quickly forming a consensus that the cited source is not reliable, by the way - is de facto ownership of the article. I strongly suggest you desist from this behavior or you're liable to be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what is de facto in your mind. The edit warring started from you despite the fact that I had already made a seperate section in the talk page to discuss the issue Weatherextremes (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD; it's how we typically prefer to operate to avoid edit warring. ElKevbo (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As ElKevbo quite correctly notes, the challenged citation and sentence must stay out absent a consensus that it is reliable, due weight, etc., none of which have been established. At WP:RSN, the consensus seems pretty clear that this text was provided by the organization itself, and merely re-hosted by UNESCO, this this is an WP:ABOUTSELF situation; this is not the same thing as a UNESCO-authored, UNESCO-published report. Weatherextremes, you also need to not mark non-minor edits as minor. See WP:MINOREDIT. Neutrality^talk 00:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion at WP:RSN I suggest the following text (that could either be in a new section or incorporated in an already existing section) The University of People is among more than one hundred members of UNESCO's Global Education Coalition and provides support on online education for various Institutions in light of the Covid-19 pandemic

Feel free to improve the proposed content in case of syntax, grammar issues Weatherextremes (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this noteworthy? What independent sources have discussed this? ElKevbo (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The UNESCO source is independent of UoPeople and of course it is noteworthy in that UoPeople takes an active stance towards the educational community in light of Covid-19. If there are no grammar/syntax issues I will go ahead and insert it Weatherextremes (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course a UNESCO source is not independent in a discussion of a UNESCO partnership. Has anyone outside of this website discussed this relationship? If not, why in the world would it be something that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article? ElKevbo (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

With the wording proposed above the statement is accurate and neutral and mentioning the UNESCO partnership is important information for readers. So I think it is time to add it. Weatherextremes (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Covid is totally irrelevant in this article. 151.35.174.252 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of the reliable sources discussion was not to include it, its over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was to be included with proper wording. Weatherextremes (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is this consensus documented? ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This school is not in Webometrics' complete ranking!

Since the article mentions Webometrics' website — including this kind or ranking can be debatable, but this is not the point — it can't omit that Webometrics' more complete ranking, i.e. the "transparent ranking", excludes University of the People.

Besides, this is what Webometrics' author has to say about UoPeople's page in his website:

Dear colleague,
Both openness and excellence scores are the last rank in each variable (zero profiles and zero top cited papers).
Best regards

That being said, the solution is

1. removing the Webometrics section altogether, OR
2. saying that, although UoPeople has a page on http://webometrics.info, it is excluded from the transparent ranking. 151.19.199.71 (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It has already been debated above. Webometrics is used in other uni articles as a valid ranking system the wording right now is biased making the university purposefully appear as junk so I suggest you use a different tone if you want to included the fact that is not in transparent ranking Weatherextremes (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I realize you were gung-ho about mentioning UoPeople's page in Webometrics.info, but those scores actually mean that UoPeople has zero professors and zero cited papers — source: Webometrics' author/maintainer — which is why UoPeople is not on Webometrics' comprehensive ranking of universities (transparent ranking). In other words, that's the worst possible score, put your mind at ease. 151.46.192.9 (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the cited reference is there any mention about professors. The university does have professors, as seen here - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/education/edlife/where-are-the-graduates-of-university-of-the-people.html TroubledSenior (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ROTFL, and where are these "professors"? In a Nigerian shared call center? Listen, unfortunately I used to work for this online pseudo school, so you and your old paid click-bait article have chosen the wrong target. 151.57.217.233 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have worked for the school, you actually are not allowed to edit this article due to a conflict of interest WP:COI. The source I gave was the New York Times, one of the oldest and respected newspapers in the USA, which is certainly not click bait. TroubledSenior (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly click bait instead. The "University of the People" Wikipedia article already has too many old sponsored (yes: sponsored, click-bait, or whatever) newspaper articles about this self-described school. These sponsored articles can be tolerated as references, but there is no need to add more false claims such as the existence of "professors". It is ridiculous. Where are the professors? Who are the professors who are supposed to teach at this online school? You didn't answer my question. Everybody knows that uopeople.edu has no professors (despite its claims), and hires some underpaid so-called "volunteer instructors" mostly working remotely from Africa. By the way, I just don't care if the website that hosts the sponsored article is nytimes.com.
As for the conflict of interest, you should reread the page you mentioned: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." Since there is no relationship with this "school", there is no conflict of interest. 151.47.48.101 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with or dislike an article doesn't mean that it's "clickbait" or "sponsored." And if you have previously worked for a subject then you indeed have a (potentially weak) COI. That doesn't mean that you can't edit the article but it does mean that you should be (a) transparent about that potential COI and (b) cautious about making edits to the article. You certainly have a strong opinion about this subject so you must be wary of violating WP:NPOV.

More importantly, the source that you've cited for the material that we're discussing doesn't mention this subject at all. So I fail to see its relevance and worry that you're engaging in original research. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2013 nytimes.com article doesn't show that this online school has professors. It vaguely says that "Professors volunteered their time." (when? and where/who are the professors?) It then claims that "a professor of sociology, medicine and public policy at N.Y.U. volunteers as dean of arts and sciences". I don't know if this claim is still true, but one thing is for sure: he doesn't teach at UoPeople.
As for Webometrics.info, my impression is that some people (in this thread too) don't know how the ranking works. A score of 5,000 is a very low score! The lowest possible scores are >= 5,000. Curiously, the article implies that it is something to brag about. 151.47.48.101 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have just read that the professor mentioned in the nytimes.com article is now "Dean of Health science" according to https://www.uopeople.edu/programs/hs/overview-hs-leadership/dean-dalton-conley/. This UoPeople.edu page, just like almost all the other pages of the same website, is misleading because it implies that the person teaches or works at UoPeople.edu. The reality is, they don't teach or work at UoPeople.edu. Indeed, the pages don't say that they teach or work there! Basically the webmaster just added — real and approved — CVs to make the site appear more authoritative, and perhaps get clicks from Google: if you look up their names, you may end up in UoPeople.edu, even though they have nothing to do with UoPeople.edu. 151.47.48.101 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

According to UoPeople below is an exhaustive list of the names of all the instructional personnel at undergrad and postgrad level

https://catalog.uopeople.edu/ug_term1_item/university-leadership-and-instructional-personne/uopeople-course-instructors https://catalog.uopeople.edu/graduate-catalog-t1/university-leadership-and-instructional-personnel/uopeople-course-instructors

Weatherextremes (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Usually, a professor/teacher has a public page (or even a site, in some cases) with useful information about their course: when and where you can contact them, exercises, projects, video lessons made by the professor, and so on. I searched the whole UoPeople.edu website and I didn't find anything, apart from generic advertising videos for YouTube (no lessons), tons of promotional content, and the usual CVs of the hypothetical professors.
Logging in to the private area, there is some written material, most often downloaded from other websites — and it is unclear if this is legal: for example, UoPeople.edu sometimes uses Wikipedia articles as textbooks, but doesn't distribute them under the proper CC license or a compatible one! And the situation gets worse when the copyrighted material was not meant to be redistributed or used by UoPeople.
To sum up, the people on those "exhausive lists of names" are just… names: they never taught or worked at UoPeople.edu. Useless and misleading lists. 151.47.22.126 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oMaibIgs9U&ab_channel=UniversityofthePeople There are many other instructors who have already posted youtube tutorials for UoPeople students. Some you can also follow in linkedin Weatherextremes (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are confusing "instructors" with "professors". By the way, the name of this instructor is not even mentioned in uopeople.edu. Is she really an "instructor" at uopeople.edu? Go figure. 151.37.184.120 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

UNHCR and UNESCO sources repeatedly being edited out by some editors

Ok I notice a trend of a couple of editors repeatedly removing well known sources such as UNESCO and UNHCR below.

1. UNHCR

https://www.unhcr.org/withrefugees/map/

2. UNESCO

https://globaleducationcoalition.unesco.org/Members/Details/128

It seems odd and to be honest like a coordinated effort from some editors not to include valid and well known sources? Why is that? I believe we need content mediation because it is now getting out of hand. It is frankly absurd to omit well known and valid sources of importance from the main article. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you should take a step back, you’ve been editing this page continuously since February (you have made 37.7% of all edits to this page [14]) and I think its leading to a WP:OWN situation. If you have to dream up a conspiracy to explain why people are taking issue with your edits its time to move on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine, let's (re)read those pages.

1. Title: "Tell us the story of someone standing #WithRefugees All across the world, people are standing with refugees. Our community map showcases diverse local initiatives supporting people forced to flee. Submit initiative". In the middle: a map. At the bottom: a form you can fill out if you want to add your "initiative" to the map, which is what UoPeople is likely to have done. Is the map useful for this Wikipedia article? No, basically it doesn't add anything.
2. At the top: "UoPeople is the first non-profit, tuition-free accredited American online university dedicated to opening access to higher education globally. Affordable, flexible and able to expand instantly, UoPeople, a tested solution to the higher education crisis linked to COVID-19, is willing to advise other institutions and governments tackling online education." It sounds like an ad, considering what the same page says at the bottom: "UNESCO does not endorse any product, service, brand or company. See legal notice." Anyway, let's keep reading. There are a few lines about UoPeople and Covid, with a promotional YouTube video. Then we find the usual fluff about UoPeople: "UoPeople is a non-profit, tuition-free, accredited American online university opening the gates of higher education yadda yadda Thanks to the online nature of the degree, UoPeople can enroll large numbers of new students, who will only need to pay registration and an assessment fee of $200 per course yadda yadda yadda". Is the page useful for this Wikipedia article? No. 151.37.40.149 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I removed the UNHCR ref because, as I explained in my edit summary, it doesn't appear to verify the statement it was attached to, and that statement already has three references, getting into WP:CITEKILL territory. Even if it supported the statement, there's plenty there that already does. The problem is that it doesn't even do that though. - Aoidh (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if you felt that I was somehow pointing to a conspiracy theory. No I am talking about something very real. Coordinated efforts from some editors (some of whom have already said they are academics in competing institutions) in order to bury important sources from UoPeople's wiki article. I think this is because UoPeople is actually disrupting traditional education and becomes much more competitive. Yes I must admit I very active in this article but I believe I have contributed rather constructively and actually helped to improve the quality of this article.

In terms of the UNESCO source as per previous discussions we can add it by changing the wording. Effectively mentioning that UoPeople is a member of UNESCO's global education initiative, we don't need to adopt the wording of the source and that is a FAIR compromise and ADDS to the quality of the article. The same goes for the UNHCR source, the fact that it is listed by UNHCR weighs heavily and adds credibility to the scholarships debate. UNHCR would probably not list some garbage institution Weatherextremes (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ASPERSIONS you either have to provide a detailed explantion including diffs of what you belive to be coordinated editing or retract those assertions. As it stands it violates WP:NPA and also appears to be very much a conspiracy theory. You have contributed positively to the article but your incessent picking of fights with everyone who wants to edit this page is going well into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory. I think you should take a step back and edit other articles for a while. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not agree that I pick fights. I see it as being very meticulous in an effort to provide the article with great and valid sources and when I see editors repeatedly scrutinizing really well known organizations and valid sources I believe it is normal to think that we are talking about a coordinated effort to bury these sources. Anyhow this is my subjective opinion for now. In terms of both the UNESCO and UNHCR sources I proposed we all work together constructively and come to a agreed text that will add value and important info on UoPeople so we will not bury legit sources Weatherextremes (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately thats not the sort of subjective opinion you’re allowed to voice on wikipedia, this is not a WP:FORUM. You either need to provide diffs or retract. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Below is an exhaustive list of UNESCO's Global Education Initiative members (123 in total)

https://globaleducationcoalition.unesco.org/members

We could word it like this University of the People is a member of UNESCO's Global Education Initiative and provides support to Universities in tackling challenges to online education in light of COVID-19 pandemic or something along these lines Weatherextremes (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should we include this information at all? Have any independent sources written about it? ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we? What is the argument here? Weatherextremes (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't include everything that is published, even if it's published in reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. ElKevbo (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources are not just anything. Both UNHCR and UNESCO sources ADD value to the article and are highly reliable Weatherextremes (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

But what exactly do they say about the subject? - Aoidh (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should we include this information at all? Have any independent sources written about it? ElKevbo (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is important information especially now with the pandemic for educators, academia and prospective students to be aware of the fact that UoPeople is providing its knowhow on online education Weatherextremes (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is that important? This is such a minor institution its hard to imagine anyone needing to be aware of that or even caring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)