Talk:Cambridge College

Possible vandalism by 74.9.53.25

An edit [1] by anonymous User:74.9.53.25 modified and therefore broke two URLs that pointed to a WSJ article about criticism of the College. I have restored them and have posted a note to User_talk:74.9.53.25, asking the editor not to damage information links in the article. -- Chonak (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

The citation from 2003 of a newspaper article accusing Cambridge College of being a degree mill seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia given that the college is accredited. It is a judgement made by a reporter who is not held to the same standard as an accreditation body. The 1996 historical comment also is based on the same newspaper article. While it may have been relevant in 2003, in the long term (it is now 2011), it does not merit inclusion. In the reference to a "degree mill", Wikipedia writes "A diploma mill (also known as a degree mill) is an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with substandard or no academic study and without recognition by official educational accrediting bodies." In the case of Cambridge College, the Wikipedia article writes "Cambridge College is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. The College and all its degree programs are authorized by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. The College is also authorized to operate and offer selected degree programs by state authorities in California, Georgia, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Virginia."

For these reasons, I will delete the inappropriate accusation.

I have no connection with Cambridge College, and was on the web page for other reasons. However, as an occasional editor for Wikipedia, I deemed it appropriate to clean it up. ClassicalScholar (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• The controversy is part of the history of the college and the appropriately sourced material about it deserves to remain for that reason. -- Chonak (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I see that the reference supporting this material had been taken out prior to ClassicalScholar's edit, so it is understandable that he saw the material as an uncited opinion. I have retrieved the relevant text from an older edition, with its reference, and reworded the section to avoid the disputed term "degree mill". --Chonak (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I wish to raise a flag of potential bias on the part of Chonak, who according to his bio is a Boston resident where Cambridge College is located. Additional his links show he is an active Catholic writer interested in things Catholic. Cambridge College was started as The Institute of Open Education by Newton College of the Sacred Heart of the Catholic Order of the Sacred Heart. Therefore, he may have private knowledge and an undeclared interest in this subject that would be inappropriate to bring into the role of editor of a web page. I do not know this for a fact, but am concerned why he restored a paragraph that I do not read as meeting Wikipedia standards.

In regards to restoring references to the WSJ article, the fact that a journalist writes a story makes the fact of it historically correct, however for it to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia the story must be unbiased, reporting only the facts, and do so in a balanced manner. The article is factually incorrect (for example, it states "Eileen Moran Brown, the college's founder..." when the record shows that the college was founded by Professor John Bremer who hired Brown) and it appears that the writer selectively cited facts to support his story. I have no personal knowledge of the college, I've never seen and and don't have much interest in it, but as a historian by training, I do detest elevating bad sources to history. As it reads, the matter is described as a controversy, when reading the source document suggests the WSJ sought to create the controversy rather than report on one. There is no indication that that there was a controversy, only that the journalist called various sources to get opinions that were then woven together to create a tempest in a teacup. For me the issue is not about the allegation (that was originally and slanderously called a degree mill), but the elevating of the work of a journalist to that of historian. The WSJ is not history, it's written to sell advertising, and you don't sell advertising with good news. Some news stories are history, but enough are not that each must be tested, not simply referenced. In my view, this reference fails the test and is biased.

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and note Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). In applying this standard to the WSJ (1) WSJ is not always reliable, (2) it is published, (3) the article in question pushes a single point of view, and comes close to what is sometimes called a hatchet job which in my view indicates it fails the Wikipedia test.

In reviewing the history of this article, I note that this has been a controversial entry with the allegation of degree mill being inserted by one editor then removed by the next, which suggests this insertion is questionable not just by me. I don't wish to get into a ping-pong game of take-out and add in, but this matter should be reviewed by neutral authorities within Wikipedia and in my view, the references to the WSJ article removed unless someone can come up with more information that represents all majority and significant minority views.

ClassicalScholar 22:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

In turn: Thanks to ClassicalScholar for the above discussion, and for the good faith argument that he presents.

To respond to the suggestion of potential bias on my part: I also have no personal interest in or private knowledge about Cambridge College, and its religious origin is not relevant to me. Like ClassicalScholar, I got involved in this article by happenstance.

On the other hand, some of the editors who have contributed to this article have been associated with the College. For example, a "geolocate" request traces the IP address of anonymous editor 74.9.53.25 to the College. There was also an editor named "John Brermer", and at least two other editors adding what looks like promotional brochure material to the article.

Returning to the merits of the question: the past controversy about the College's quality standards is a part of the College's history. Since it was significant enough for the accrediting body NEASC to comment on it, it was significant. The material in the article is sourced, and states facts about the issue. ClassicalScholar contends that the material reported by Golden in WSJ only reflects one side of the dispute. If so, the cure is not to delete that one side from the article, but to add material which reflects both sides of the dispute and its eventual resolution. For instance, how soon did NEASC indicate its satisfaction by changing its statements about the college? --Chonak (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)