Jump to content

Talk:Underwood International College

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

Back plugging the article again? Keep it simple.

Kailliak continues to troll this page. Now she is adding irrelevant information about a few misbehaving students among the 4000 freshmen Yonsei students who live on the Songdo campus. She continues to display her ignorance of the Yonsei university system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Conflict of Interest editing

[edit]

Multiple IP users have been geolocated to Yonsei University, and UIC is a college of Yonsei. User eciffociu (UIC office backwards) was banned for promotional modifications. Few other IP addresses which were not located to Yonsei but to Korea made similar modifications to the aforementioned users. Common factors for these modifications are that they have modified Controversy and/or copy pasted copyright content from UIC website. The nature has been promotional in both kinds of modifications. Kailliak (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • User Eciffociu: removal of content on "Controversy"; promotional account; banned
  • User 123.109.225.133: unexplained removal of content multiple times on “Controversy”; untagged changes of controversy; suwon broadcasting corporation
  • User 123.109.234.5: persistent modifications of “Controversy”; suwon broadcasting corporation
  • User 203.229.108.150: unexplained removal of content multiple times on “Controversy”
  • User 165.132.192.88: unexplained removal of content multiple times on “Controversy”; geolocated to yonsei university
  • User 165.132.5.146: unexplained removal of content multiple times on “Controversy”; geolocated to yonsei university
  • User Doodle2017: persistent removal of content on“Controversy”; participated discussion on the Talk page saying that the link to the article is the problem, however, after removing the link continued vandalizing the content; claims the research being flawed, however, does not provide any valid evidence proving the flaws

It strongly seems like all of these users are factually UIC's promotional accounts. These are most likely sockpuppet accounts and one account, namely Eciffociu, has been banned. According to Wikipedia rules, if an account is banned, the sockpuppet accounts cannot maked modifications either. Therefore, it should be discussed whether all of these users should be prohibited of modifying this page. Kailliak (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is strongly likely that account 'Kailliak' is connected to the author of the article mentioned in the controversy section. Linking the controversy and adding bibliographical information is fine. Adding long passages from the article and tangential information is not appropriate for this wiki. Kalliak should make a separate wiki for the article if she insists. There is no need to add the so much text from the article to this page. The article Kailliak continues to link has already been refuted. Contrary to the claims, John Frankl is a foreign faculty member who currently serves as an university administrative official at Yonsei University. Kailliak's article claims that it is not possible for a foreign faculty member to participate in Yonsei University administration, but he is refuting the article as a university administrator. John Frankl cites official statistics from Yonsei University as an officer of the University and is therefore a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Doodle2017 "John Frankl cites official statistics from Yonsei University as an officer of the University and is therefore a credible source." These statistics have not been published and there is no other source than John Frankl blog writing. The fact that Doodle2017 states the statistics being official and Frankl acting as a university administrator proves that Doodle2017 is a COI user. Additionally, when making claims that there is a connection between Kailliak and the author, it would be nice to provide some sort of evidence for the claims. Kailliak (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Frankl is currently the associate dean of the Office of International Affairs. He cites university faculty retention figures and since Yonsei University is accredited by the Ministry of Education of Korea, a request for the information from the MOE should verify if the data is true or not. Korean universities must regularly report relevant administrative data to the MOE to retain their accreditation. Are you accusing a university official of Yonsei university of providing false information? http://oia.yonsei.ac.kr/intro/contact.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually universities do not publish official statistics through single individual's blog writing and, therefore, this source is questionable. We need a third party opinion here. 121.162.51.40 (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this dispute from wp:3, because it is not a content dispute. I would suggest taking this to WP:COIN. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on student controversy. If the criteria of student protest is applied then all major university wikis should include them as student protests over controversial administrative decisions are a part of university life. Every single university in the world has had student protest at some point in their institutional history. Kailliak has not explained why this particular student protest was so important that it warrants an entry. The protest page that she links had less than 100 signers (Out of a program that had over a thousand students at the time) and never reached the goal of 300, which the protests set as a reasonable target. The rest of the entries I will not contest as they reference issues that are in the public domain. Any further attempt to insert major sections of Kalliak's article will be deleted as readers can simply look up the references provided for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the section was about censorship, not student protestors. Student protesting might be common in colleges whereas censorship is a violation of freedom of speech and is a severe violation of students rights. Also, Doodle2017 again proved to be a COI user by knowing how many students there were in the program during the time of the petition. Only UIC administration can know these statistics since they are not public. Kailliak (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The About UIC section of the UIC website lists 16 majors, 554 courses, 112 faculty and 2,000 current students. If you extrapolate back about 5-6 years, then there was clearly more than a thousand students...unless 2000 students just appear from nowhere...Contrary to what Kalliak's article claims, there doesn't seem to be many 'Korean American' faculty. Perhaps it may have been true when the article was written, but not the case now. The UIC faculty has about 30-40 identifiably international faculty and the rest Korean faculty. If you look at the listed faculty profiles, many of the foreign faculty indicate that they have been at the institution for many years. For example "Anthony Curtis Adler has been teaching German and Comparative literature as an Assistant Professor at Underwood International College since the Fall of 2006" He is now listed as full 'Professor'. Michael Michael "I am an associate professor of history and philosophy of science at Underwood International College, Yonsei University, where I have been working since 2006". Paul Tonks, "I have taught at Yonsei University Underwood International College since 2006." There are several more examples of long term international faculty profiles. Many of the international faculty do appear to be fairly recent hires, but there is no indication of whether or not they are tenure track or not. Kalliak needs to provide proof of her claims if she is convinced that these are all temporary hires. Considering the rapid expansion of the program to 2000 students, it is not surprising that they hired so many people over the years and some have left. No university has 100% retention. I am sure there were problems at the start as Kalliak suggests, but the profile of the faculty does not indicate a program about to collapse.

Dispute over "Transparency"

[edit]

It is written in a peer reviewed article (Kim) published in the journal Comperative Education that UIC faculty members self-reported lack of transparency. Objectively, this is a valid source, and the information per se is beneficial for this Wikipedia article. Are there any objectively valid evidence proving otherwise? Kailliak (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "Faculty retention"

[edit]

It is written also in the article that faculty retention is an issue in UIC. Although a faculty member John Frank commented on the statistics, objectively, a research article is a better source than a person with conflict of interest pointing out unpublished information. Kailliak (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Frankl is currently the associate dean of the Office of International Affairs and represents the university before foreign exchange partner universities. It is highly unlikely that he would make a public statement unless the information has been collected through Yonsei administrative channels. If you have proof that Yonsei university is providing misleading information please provide a concrete and credible source other than the article you keep citing which was written years ago as a Ph.D. thesis and most likely uses out of date information.
Usually universities do not publish official statistics through single individual's blog writing and, therefore, this source is questionable. We need a third party opinion here. Assuming that the numbers are correct, there is still question about the increased number of temporary employments of foreign faculty meaning that these employments do not affect faculty retention statistics. Kailliak (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request :
There needs to be a reliable source. Both of you, prove it. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on Kalliak. I am not making any claims other than citing a Yonsei University administrator who published university data on a site operated by the Times Higher Education supplement. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ Kalliak claims that it is a 'blog posting' but it is an official rebuttal to Kalliak's article. Kalliak counters with increased temporary employments of faculty. Yet she provides no concrete figures of the rise and what percentage of the faculty are tenure track vs. non-tenure track. I have not removed links that are relevant nor did I remove bibliographical information. Kalliak continues to turn this wiki into an extended summary of her article which is not appropriate. She is trying to insert the contents of her article on the wiki of the institution that she criticizes in her article.
User Doodle2017 refers to this website https://www.timeshighereducation.com/letters/korea-highs. If we accept this website as a valid source of information, then we have to accept also that "faculty hiring practices at Yonsei University have changed recently and now include a number of temporary contract positions for foreigners." However, in this discussion the academic research article is a better source. Kailliak (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to raise a few points. In my opinion Kailliak provides no contextual information about how many tenure track vs temporary contract positions are hired at Yonsei University. She also does not explain which units of Yonsei University received those temporary contract positions. There are over a dozen colleges at Yonsei University. She provides no information about which Yonsei colleges have more tenure track positions vs temporary contract positions. She also fails to explain if the percentage of tenure track vs temporary contract positions at Yonsei is unusual. Many institutions observe this practice in both Korea and abroad. In fact, many American university departments have more temporary contract positions than tenure track. Does this mean that American universities have trouble retaining faculty according to this logic? BTW Kailliak, why are you at 121.162.51.40 all of a sudden? What business brings you to Seongnam?
Firstly, the dispute here is the source and content and Kailliak is citing the website Doodle2017 refers to. If we accept this website as a valid source, then inevitably "faculty hiring practices at Yonsei University have changed recently and now include a number of temporary contract positions for foreigners." Secondly, this dispute over faculty retention seems to be thoroughly discussed since Doodle2017 has started throwing ad hominems and talking about user Kailliak being in Seongnam. There hardly is any connection between the dispute over faculty retention and IP address 121.162.51.40 being located to KT Telecom headquarters in Seongnam. Kailliak (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "Censorship of student newsletter"

[edit]

This part does not seem to have disputes. Kailliak (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from above: "I removed the section on student controversy. If the criteria of student protest is applied then all major university wikis should include them as student protests over controversial administrative decisions are a part of university life. Every single university in the world has had student protest at some point in their institutional history. Kailliak has not explained why this particular student protest was so important that it warrants an entry. The protest page that she links had less than 100 signers (Out of a program that had over a thousand students at the time) and never reached the goal of 300, which the protests set as a reasonable target. The rest of the entries I will not contest as they reference issues that are in the public domain. Any further attempt to insert major sections of Kalliak's article will be deleted as readers can simply look up the references provided for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)"
The section was about censorship, not student protestors. Student protesting might be common in other colleges too, however, censorship is a violation of freedom of speech and is a severe violation of students' rights. Therefore, it is worth writing about the censorship done by the administration. Kailliak (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3O comment: this article has a lot of disputes that could be resolved by providing reliable sources. Just prove it, ffs. ProgrammingGeek talktome 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "Student dissatisfaction"

[edit]

This part does not seem to have major disputes. Kailliak (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

The neutrality of the Controversy section is in question. Despite admitting a violation of Wikipedia rules is taking place, Kailliak refuses to remove the information linked to an external tracker and continues to feed traffic to an academia.edu profile.Doodle2017 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That was clearly a straw man argument since there has not been any discussion is the link necessary to be removed. On the other hand, removing the information is highly unethical vandalism. Kailliak (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I left the content and removed the offending linkDoodle2017 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for doing it. Here is the article's source if you want to add it there too: Kim, Stephanie K. "Western faculty 'flight risk' at a Korean university and the complexities of internationalisation in Asian higher education." Comparative Education. Vol. 52, Iss. 1, 2016. Pages 78-90. Kailliak (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not over. Your behavior has shown that you are not a neutral party to this debate and you clearly want to promote this article through the wikipedia page of the institution being criticized. The article has been refuted to contain incomplete data and lack of sufficient evidence.Doodle2017 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Excuse me for my Asperger's Syndrome, but I just really find this topic interesting. Kailliak (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No you are trying to use wikipedia to promote flawed research. This is not in accordance to any academic ethical standard.Doodle2017 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with the Controversy section. Despite the violation of Wikipedia rules that sources with tracking information should be avoided, Kailliak continues to feed traffic to academia.edu where a visitor tracker credits the owner of the profile with clicks. Kailliak has been given ample time to link to a neutral site without a tracker. Failure to comply with Wikipedia guidelines suggests a desire to keep inflating the tracker on the academia.edu profile Doodle2017 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have no interest in keeping the link on this article's page nor is it my job to remove the link. If you try to remove the information per se, however, you degrade the quality of the article and the article will be restored. If you want to remove the link, you should find an alternative way to do the citation. The information itself, however, is a separate thing from the citation style. Kailliak (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you want to restore the information, link the content to a neutral site without a traffic tracker in accordance to Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to more Wikipedia guidelines on links normally to be avoided: "Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided You should not be linking information that tracks and credits readers that follow the link. Academia.edu profiles have click trackers that gives credits for the number of visitors. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules and should be deleted immediately.Doodle2017 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: You should note that the links you mentioned should be normally (not always) avoided and therefore it should be discussed if in this case the link should be avoided. Furthermore, "Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.". According to this particular rule, there is no reason to remove the information itself if the source is helpful per se. Instead, the traffic should be directed to use a neutral link. In this particular case, it should be discussed whether it is necessary to remove the link or not, however, the information itself does not violate any rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailliak (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You dismissed my protest and kept telling me to check the Wikipedia policy so I did. I discovered a clear violation. You acknowledge that it is against Wikipedia rules to link to an external source that tracks clicks. Your link is not a neutral site and in fact feeds traffic to the academia.edu profile of the person who is involved in this controversy. The academia.edu page that is linked from this article has a high volume of clicks that was most likely driven by this page and benefits the profile by inflating the click numbers. Remove the link immediately.Doodle2017 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines: "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest Kailliak continues to drive traffic to an academia.edu profile that registers clicks in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. This Conflict of Interest violation should stop. Doodle2017 (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promote academia.edu pages through an academic forum rather than link it to a Wikipedia page.Doodle2017 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Before using the word "promotion", please read and understand the definition of the word from Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Also, it is recommended for you to understand the basic ideas of encyclopedia before modifying Wikipedia articles. Kailliak (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue is the lack of neutrality when it is is possible that Kailliak may be connected to the academia.edu profile that keeps being linked to this article.Doodle2017 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I demand you to cease claiming that I "own, maintain or represent" academia.edu site or any content in the site. This kind of ad hominem attacks without any substance are completely against Wikipedia's rules. Kailliak (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting research through wikipedia entry of the organization being criticized to drive clicks to a academia.edu profile is highly unethical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle2017 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It is recommended for you to consult the rules of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the idea of an encyclopedia is to write an objective and informative article. A peer reviewed article which is published in an academic journal is a valid source for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. In comparison to this kind of disinterested information, information given by the college about itself is very unreliable. Furthermore, vandalism is highly unethical behavior, whereas informing people is highly ethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailliak (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts to link an Academia.edu profile that contains articles unrelated to this entry. Wikipedia is not a page to promote unrelated content.123.109.234.5 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A peer reviewed article which is published in an academic journal is objectively a more reliable source than information given by the college about itself. Therefore, you should stop vandalizing the quality of this article. Kailliak (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Severe Vandalism Continues In 2016, user Eciffociu (UIC Office backwards) was banned for indefinite period of time because of the promotional nature of the account. Eciffociu made modifications to "Controversy". In March 2017, "Controversy" is modified by IP users, one of which was geolocated to Yonsei University. Therefore, the promotion continues by COI IP users. Kailliak (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous attempt to link the work of an individual who is not related to Yonsei University.

Continuous vandalism by Conflict of Interest users. March 6 modifications geolocated to Yonsei University. This article needs to be protected. Kailliak (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia entry should not be used to promote the work of individuals not related to Yonsei University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.109.234.5 (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous vandalism as the secondary source information is being deleted. Kailliak (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" is continuously vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailliak (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In accurate and unconfirmed information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.109.225.133 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UIC faculty rebuttal information added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.109.225.133 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Underwood International College. 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) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Underwood International College. 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) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Underwood_International_College&oldid=1197341493"