Talk:Woodbury University/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
COI
My comment that I put when adding the COI notice to this article: I would like for the wider article as a whole to be reviewed by a party that is not employed by the university or party to controversy information. This serves to disclose my own conflict of interest as an employee (not in a promotional department, but as a librarian - nevertheless, my position qualifies me as a conflicted party). I also hope that it will encourage other editors with potential conflicts of interest to be forthright. Employees are often among the best experts in an institution's history and inner workings, but I understand that their inherent bias demands scrutiny when edits are made. This will help to ensure objectivity and transparency and strengthen the overall quality of the article.
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
To be specific, I'd like some resolution on the ever-changing status of the sections on declining enrollment and the whistleblowing/firing lawsuit that have been repeatedly posted & taken down over and over recently by different parties who, on both sides, may have a conflict of interest to disclose. I'd like for review from neutral parties (non-employees, and nobody party to the lawsuit cited) about whether these are worded in a neutral manner and placed in the correct sections of the article. Is "Whistleblower controversy after alleged abuse and cover-up by school executives" a neutrally worded section head? I usually see "Controversies" instead. Should the decline in enrollment be in the introduction, or the history? Why is a summary of academic programming at the University considered too trivial for the introduction and removed from the article entirely, but Moody's information is treated differently? I ask these questions not to push a biased agenda, but to have them answered by neutral editors. On the other side, here are a couple examples of potentially problematic promotional language: "AACSB accreditation represents the highest achievement for an educational institution that awards business degrees, a status conferred on less than 5 percent of all business programs worldwide." "This recognition identifies Woodbury as a school that truly changes the trajectory of its students." Both of these wordings look as though they might have come from press releases. Bibliotreka (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Please explain what is non-neural about this article? Can this COI please be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatCountry (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I put the CoI tag on. This was because an editor of the article was Woodbury1884 whose name suggests he or she has involvement with the university. I left a message on the user's talk page saying the username is against policy and that promoting an organisation with which one is involved is not allowed, but haven't had a response. As for removing the tag, the article seems currently to have a reasonably neutral point of view but I would be interested in the views of more experienced editors. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
COI
It seems like the COI notice can be removed from this entry. Do any others have recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.126.21.120 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes it seems neutral and as such, appropriate to remove the COI notice
Jojobeans2018 (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)