Talk:Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination

Whoever changed the "lowest passing score in any jurisdiction" to "100" is an ass.24.91.183.34 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to baroutlines(dot)com which appears to be a purely commercial website selling review outlines. 68.84.22.41 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Link - Review Course

The links to one of two preparation sites have been added and removed around ~30 times. The current version is the most blatant spam. Putting "FREE" in all caps is not appropriate, and seriously casts doubt on any of the IP addresses lacking a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia is not a means of promoting a website, Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, and Wikipedia is not a guidebook for those wishing to take the test, Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE.

External links should not be to:

Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. Wikipedia:ELNO

The link should be removed. If any are added, they should be to official sites of the MPRE or abanet.org, where the materials covered can be acquired. Even if prep materials were appropriate, it should link to the well-known notable companies.

Mahewa (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the Removal of External Links

The majority of all users of the e-mpre.com website are visiting to make use of the MPRE outline (which does happen to be completely free - no regisration is required). It also happens to be the most comprehensive to the point MPRE outline on the internet (Unless you can find and show otherwise). Thousands of law students use that outline every testing period to prepare for the MPRE. It's an invaluable free resource for students to take advantage of and providing a link to such a resource is not a violation of the WIKI COI rules. It fact it is a benefit to the wiki community. In fact, Kaplan and Themisbar's websites should likely be listed as well, as they also have free resources for law students to prep for the MPRE.

In addition, the Outline offered on the website contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as ......online textbooks), or other reasons." <--- straight from wiki COI page... The Outline explains in detail all of the rules covered by the MPRE (The subject of the underlying WIKI page). For any person who wanted to understand the exam by learning the content to be tested on the exam can do so by clicking that link. NO REGISTRATION is required to access that resource on the website. The Outline is over 100 pages worth of material explaining in detail the material to be tested on the MPRE.

As far as the comment concerning "Even if prep materials were appropriate, it should link to the well-known notable companies." There are so many problems with that comment that I won't begin to address them :P —Precedingunsigned comment added by74.4.128.120 (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This post signifies the very problem with the link. You are clearly advertising for the site. Your statement "Unless you can find and show otherwise" is completely contrary to Wikipedia's process. You are advocating for the content, it is your responsibility to show it is relevant. The only way you can have the knowledge about the site's popularity is from its own claims or your personal knowledge.

This is clearly lacking a neutral point of view, and you are ignoring consensus. The website started in September of 2009, http://registrar.schlund.info/xml/registrar/Whois_Result;jsessionid=F299A76B2CDFAE15494806D493770384.TC14a?__reuse=1281080904863&__frame=, and starting in December of that same year, you have posted the link on this page half a dozen times, with at least 5 different registered users deleting it. Clearly you are the only one in the community who wants it there, and this has been your only contribution, except also trying to post the link on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bar_examination&diff=prev&oldid=375062102.

Nothing about this outline is necessary, the MPRE official site provides the breakdown of question areas, and the ABA's website has the official model rules. Even if the site and you posting it isn't against numerous policies, and it is, it is still against the weight of what the community wants, and that trumps your desire to advertise your site.Mahewa (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in further Support

WIKI has stated that Wiki is not a “Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.”HOWEVER, wiki also states that “There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links …” —Precedingunsigned comment added by74.4.128.120 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reordered to proper order by Mahewa (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mahewa

Actually edits / unedits of the links page total is about 15, not 30, don't exaggerate. And the issue mainly exists because those who keep removing the link were doing so improperly. Wiki rules specifically state that the first step is start discussion about the issue before doing anything else, such as removing links. You Mahewa, are the first person to start a discussion concerning your issue over the links, even though you improperly removed the link before doing so initially. You can't choose to violate the wiki rules while preaching about following them. We have differing opinions on the value of the link and whether it violates the COI, and it should be discussed.

There are many reasons why the link is not a violation of the Wiki COI and why, under the WIKI rules, even if there is a COI, that the link should remain.

Even ASSUMING COI...Wiki specifically addresses the issue under "Subject and culture sector professionals" (who may have a COI). Subject specialists, under this section of the WIKI COI, are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources.

The website is NOT "mainly intended to promote a website"...in fact under "the lowdown on the MPRE", the website encourages people to only use the free resources on the website and points out that those resources are really all that is necessary for MPRE preparation. Those free resources are unique and cannot be found anywhere else on the internet in that form. It provides detailed analysis of the MPRE material which is NOT found on the ABA or NCBEX website. In fact, it explains the official rules offered on the ABA website in the outline format suggested by NCBEX (which neither the aba nor ncbex does).

The website does NOT "Link to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising" - The primary purpose of the website is not to sell products or services. The primary purpose of the website is to help law students prepare for the MPRE - not through the use of the commercial part of the website. In fact, for the current testing period (exam is going on today), approximately 9,200 people made use of the outline offered on the website - The significance of that number is seen when one considers that based on the stats offered on the NCBEX website concerning test takers, that approximately 18,000 people take the August exam each year. That means about HALF of all law students are using the completely free resource offered on that website to help prepare for the examination. I think that fact alone shows how valuable the resource is to this community, despite your OPINION to the contrary.

The website does NOT "Link to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". No registration is required to the view the most relevant material. Registration is only required for the individuals that want to take a practice exam. And I would like you to find a service that can offer testing materials for free, when in fact most companies license the material from the originator the exams. The material offered on NCBEX's website for PURCHASE - would have to be licensed by any company that wished to offer it, in any format.

As far as ":Nothing about this outline is necessary, the MPRE official site provides the breakdown of question areas, and the ABA's website has the official model rules." That's just a ridiculous statement and merely your personal opinion (and you know what they say about opinions), the website offers information that is not gained from either website that you claim it is.

"Clearly you are the only one in the community who wants it there"....actually, there only seems to be a few people who don't want it there. There have easily been 100x as many wiki visitors who have followed the link from wiki AND made use of the free resources on the website. It's beneifit to the community is obvious, despite your claims to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.109.54(talk) 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to put in chronological order. If you you are not going to thread your discussions, please at least follow the guidelines that the entries are to appear chronologically. -Mahewa (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am still waiting for one of the claimed reasons this is not conflict of interest, especially given this information. The information you keep pulling out of nowhere (9,200 people using the outline and 100x as many people have followed the link) has to be made up or from your personal affiliation with the site. These numbers are meaningless unless you can say where you're getting them. You continue to talk about this being my opinion, but you have failed to show a source to a single one of the numerous factual assertions you have made.

The information about experts linking to their resources does not mean that you can come to Wikipedia and make edits for no larger point than linking to your website. This is made clear by the fact that this is only to be done in compliance with the External Links Guidelines, which state: "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." Wikipedia:EL#ADV

And while it also requires registration, I can certainly refer you to the far better known Kaplan MPRE test prep, which provides two quizzes, two practice tests, and a large quizbank for free, in addition to outlines and videos. http://www.kaptest.com/Bar-Exam/Free-Products/Free-Products/MPRE-online-course.html There is nothing remarkable about e-mpre.com, and I'd be very interested to see if you can provide any kind of independent source that talks about the reputation, notability, or reliability of e-mpre.com. Google rank puts MPRE behind all but 3 of the many prep companies. http://www.google.com/Top/Reference/Education/Products_and_Services/Test_Preparation/Professional_Exams/Law/

I do not believe this page adds anything. I still maintain that Wikipedia is not designed to help people prepare for the exam, only to provide information about it. This site adds nothing to the subject beyond what the official sources provide as to content. Most of the reasons given for the link are about usefulness. Being useful and heavily used does not mean that it adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.Mahewa (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

The e-mpre.com link does not belong in this article. It is absolutely linkspam and should not be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion

As a law student, the only reason I came to the wiki MPRE site was to look for ideas on study resources. Having read the discussion, I visited the MPRE website in dispute and found the resources offered as entirely relevant and I believe the link should be listed on wiki. Seems to me that when wiki started, it was a much more useful service. Now there seems to be a bunch of link nazi's running around preventing its usefulness. Just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.219.98 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]