Talk:Information and Communications University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected[edit]

I protected this page because we've had a bad edit war here for awhile. Talk it out here. Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is it a place where these constant revert wars are tolerated. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request that link to ESL Blacklist be included. The school has refused to allow it to stay on as part of this Wikipedia page. Instead, the school has built the page into a false advertisement. The ESL Blacklist is an important item for any foreign professional considering a position with the school. I want the link featured at the top of the page. The link is: ESL Blacklist: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~jonb/blacklisted.html

  • With all due respect, Wikipedia is not the place to debate on the reputation of the school. Citing a blacklist is not a reliable source; and makes the article POV and unencyclopedic. If you want to bad-mouth the institution by putting a blacklisting link, do it on Dave's ESL Cafe, or on the link's website itself (from where I'm at now, the link seems to be dead anyways). Just please, NOT on Wikipedia. --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 08:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got to agree with the above user that the ESL blacklist link does not belong to this article. It simply isn't a major enough issue within the school to be discussed (much less be the first link in the article). On the other hand, the article as it is does sound much more like a blatant advertisement rather than a factual article. Saligron 07:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think either Moderators here give all the rights of edit of this wikipedia to that moron Charlie DD, who is crying for his personal matters with the university, OR the moderators can give the rights of introduction of university to those more than a 1000 students and teachers belonging to the university. Do you think this university is a shop which anybody can yell about that it is selling spoiled eggs? Its an intensive research institution with maximum number of patents per capita in all over the country (Korea).
  • According to 2005 Korean Universities' Academy-Industry Collaboration Report published by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development on Jan. 17, 2007, ICU faculty had produced 1.833 patent per capita till December 2005, the best ratio among 132 four-year universities in Korea.
  • How about giving out all the edited content of MIT to a person who once had been fired by MIT? how about citing ESL or some other dumbshit as the first and only link on the wikipedia page of MIT? Throwing the filth at the name of MIT?
  • I am being harsh in my words, but I am really surprised at the moderators who dont see very obvious things of common sense. (Pardon me again for my harsh words, but it is what it is). VirtualEye 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


IMHO, both sides of the edit war suck. One side can't help themselves from heaping praise upon praise for the school. They also don't bother to use Wiki formatting nor follow the style guidelines for Wikipedia. The other side is too eager to badmouth the school.

What's needed is a factual article with neither a positive nor a negative spin, written according to the Wikipedia style guidelines. Having the article written by people personally involved with the school appears to be a bad idea from what I've seen from the edit history. (I'm guessing the pro side is by one of the school staff from the way it's written like a brochure, while the con side is by someone who's had a bad experience with the school from its ranting style.) Saligron 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this college refers to its Wikipedia entry in its English faculty recruiting advertising, then it has become a valid place to warn potential faculty of past and current problems the school has with dealing with foreign staff. Virtual Eye, that you would use such harsh words is not out of character for you. Why not save it for your terrorism postings? CharlieDD 14:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did Wikipedia become a English faculty recruitment site? Or an advertising gimmick? Please, let's remember that Wikipedia is an information source, which should be neutral and free from bias. Both of you have biased agendas; it doesn't belong here. And also please be civil and keep a cool head. Oh, and don't forget to sign your name with 4 tildas (~). --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a neutral party should write up an encyclopedic entry for this school and then lock it for good. Take a look at my "Short and True" version from last year (which went unchallenged for many months). 'Something along those lines should be sufficient. In that version, I took out the advertising fluff, corrected what were obvious errors, intentional or not, and I included a single link to the ESL blacklist among several links the school had included. The edit war began when the school had some of its staff / student workers take off the ESL blacklist link and start building the page into a chest-pounding advertisement, and then referred to its Wikipedia entry in its recruitment of English faculty. And for the record, I am not the agrieved party of the ESL Blacklist posting. A neutral encyclopedic entry, locked permanently would keep the school from rebuilding the entry into its English homepage / advertisement and keep the ESL blacklist link from seeming necessary. CharlieDD 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me by clear, I would had been rude in the talk, not to right the scholaristic content.

Now I would ask Mr. CharlieDD, You claim as you had included ESL link as an FYI being so called neutral. I would ask you, since you have registered your name in wikipedia how many articles you have edited? NONE except this article about this university. At the same time you had been active at this site on minute to minute basis, reverting any edit. I must say, that you are that person who was pissed off by the university and you only joined wikipedia to throw your rubbish at the university.

Now I must say to others too, Wikipedia is an 'information' source. Information of a university includes:

  • Location
  • Size of university (in terms of students, researchwork, Faculties etc.)
  • Areas of specialization
  • Programs offered
  • Scholary Contributions

The information about any university does not mean to give the one and only link to an external website describing the situation of a sole pissed off person who was fired from university. People dont come to wikipeida to check why a person was pissed off.

Does anybody accept statistics? Is it a small thing that this university has the highest number of research patents per capita in all the hundreds of universities of Korea? For a student to complete Masters degree, he has to complete 45 study credits and 1 credit for and English course called "Thesis Writing Skills". The ration of people involved in this university to those English teachers is 1100 to 3. Please dont use this artical as a jerky ad for only one or two persons who might or might not even think to check wikipedia. They will not dream that there is an artical in wikipedia by one English teacher telling about the ways he was pissed off by the university. (I dont mean to disgrace a teacher here, but I have been directly disgraced first by the advertisement against institution, please note that) VirtualEye 06:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to summarize the edit history here. The very earliest version of the article from March, 2006 is a cut-and-paste job from a brochure (or it was a pretty good fascimile of one). It was rather bad for an encyclopedia article, with its utter disregard for appropriate style and neutrality. I consider this forgivable in that there was no information about the school at all before that point. JubalHarshaw edited this into something much more appropriate as an encyclopedia article in August, 2006. After that there were relatively minor edits.
Then in December 2006, CharlieDD added a rather negative slant to the article. (Incidently, CharlieDD is the one who first added the ESL blacklist link.) A few days after this edit, VirtualEye rewrote it just like the original version, which as I've said before was really bad, but this time there isn't any excuse for the poor quality. This started an edit war which went on until the article was protected.
What I want to say after glancing through the edit history is that users with agendas need to refrain from editing the article. If they want to edit the article, they should edit with the attitude that they're contributing to Wikipedia. They should not edit with the attitude that Wikipedia is a vehicle for promoting a university or to express how much they think the university sucks. They need to respect Wikipedia instead of thinking it as their own personal (or institutional) megaphone.
And to anyone who really thinks that the ESL black list should be included: You should discuss the specific issues that the university has had problems within the article itself, instead of just including a link and/or just saying there have been problems. On the other hand, it's my opinion that the ESL situation doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article unless it has been a major issue with the university. Saligron 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Saligron, I am in no means a marketing officer. I personally might have some reservations or complaints about univeristy, but I dont comeout yelling on wikipedia to advertise my insults. I would rather present the facts and figures (statistics) of university. And presenting the fact or statistics of university is not something you call advertisement. On MIT page, it has been told what is the rank of university in the world. Is it an advertisement or a fact? Telling how many schools ICU has, or how many campuses or students it has is advertisement or bad information in wikipedia article? Telling the distinguishing feature of university is not bad either.

After that I can say that I may acknowledge some pros and cons of university in scholarly manner, but not only mentioning what are the ways I 'personally' got pissed off. VirtualEye 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics, fine. Location, fine. Course structure, fine. Slogans, not so fine. Value judgements, not so fine. Written like a brochure, not so fine. Like I said, a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a Wikipedia article, not a brochure-like document with an utter disregard for Wikipedia policies. The article as it is is hardly the quality of the MIT article (e.g., it simply states that specific sources ranked MIT as such and such, rather than gushingly endorse the school).
And I'll be frank: the current article screams "the school sucks so much so that it has to cut-and-paste an advertisement" rather than "these are the facts about a really good school". Saligron 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (who's wondering what makes VirtualEye think I'm a guy ...)[reply]

Miss. Saligron :). Agreed, that this article will be made scholstic and not an advertisement, but I cant promise it to make it such in just one day, I will sculpt it gradually. VirtualEye 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the gender or marital status of someone you don't know is not wise. Anyways, I suggest that we revert the page from the September 13th revision, which seems to be the most reasonable starting point with the least amount of bias. And hopefully all the edits (presumably by more than one person) will be non-biased and follow WP:Policy. Saligron 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I used your use name for addressing you, calling Mr. Saligron. Upon that you wrote: (who's wondering what makes VirtualEye think I'm a guy ...) Upon that I wrote you as Miss. Saligron, now you are again offended. Either you are Miss or Mr. , or do I have to consider something else? VirtualEye 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended. It's just that my gender is none of your business. Don't add a Mr., Miss, Mrs., Mz., etc. at all. Saligron 23:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I can't find any reliable references about Academics and Schools section. arthurhahn

They're mentioned in the school website. Is there any reason to suspect that such factual information was falsified? Saligron 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Information and Communications University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Information_and_Communications_University&oldid=1202953088"