Talk:University of the People/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about University of the People. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Location Links
Hi Everyone--Lindsay from UoPeople again. It's great to see so many people invested in the content on this page. However, we're a bit confused by the new lede, which says we're a "private non-profit, distance education university with links to Pasadena, USA and Tel Aviv, Israel." I can't find another example of a University being described as having "links" to cities (including other 100% online schools like Capella). Rather it seems standard to reference the headquarters--which in our case, is Pasadena, CA. Can someone help me understand how this inclusion is relevant and unbiased? Every document and reference--from the IRS forms, to the WASC report, to news coverage, notes that we are based in Pasadena. Thanks very much. Lindsay.UoPeople (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "News coverage", which is based on misleading press releases, is often incorrect, not to say deceptive: for example, the Guardian claims this university to have "no fees", which is blatantly false, and the list is much longer. That being said, claiming that "it is headquartered in Pasadena CA" is misleading too, because there are no headquarters in Pasadena. Besides, your comparison with "other 100% online schools like Capella" (or WGU) doesn't hold, because they do have real headquarters. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
(Comment removed for violating BLP and being off topic) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your allegations were refuted by the "sockpuppet investigation" (against me) requested by you and/or other UoPeope.edu SPAs a few months ago, which showed that the people you mention, who I don't know, had and have completely different IP addresses. This is the only technical proof; everything else is a lot of nonsense and you should quit telling the same stories over and over again. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 23:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Invented number of students
UoPeople claims to have more than one hundred thousand students, and so do plenty of promotional articles all over the Internet. If this number is true, why did WASC, which is an official source being a regional accrediting body, verify a very different number (about 5,000)? Also, it's funny that UoPeople reps now delete WASC, after claiming for a long time that "WASC will accredit UoPeople". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- this is why we should use third party sources, not primary ones.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the vast majority of online articles simply copy-paste a number invented by UoPeople and used chiefly for advertising purposes (huge font in the main section of the homepage). —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- WASC provides IPEDS as the data source. IPEDS reported a Fall 2019 enrollment of 5,043 and currently reports a Fall 2020 enrollment of 43,722. The Fall 2021 numbers will not be available until Fall 2022. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Time Magazine source should be just fine. A perfectly reliable source [1]. Weatherextremes (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, because the real "source" is one of UoPeople's usual press releases, full of unsubstantiated and hyperbolic claims, which is even linked in the article. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 18:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, this a reliable source as per wiki policy. The primary sources from UoPeople state 117k students while the article says around 100k students. Weatherextremes (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- And, indeed, the linked UoP press released doesn't even say 100,000. It says "The university currently enrolls more than 76,000 students from 200 countries – 6,000 of which are refugees – and expects to surpass 100,000 students by fall." Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- at the same time the homepage claims "117,750" with a huge font. However, the number (or numbers, because the website is internally inconsistent, as you showed) is not confirmed by any external independent audit, therefore UoPeople can make up a new number every month just like a lottery draw. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 10:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- I am linking the most recent UoPeople primary source on student numbers [2] There presently are more than 117,000 students enrolled from more than 200 countries and territories. Over 10,000 of these students are refugees.* Weatherextremes (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- WASC states that the total is 4,041 + 1,185 = 5,226. On the other hand, the online Time article (which might be sponsored, as usual) simply refers to a UoPeople press release, which multiplies that number by 20 just for advertising purposes and fails to provide evidence to substantiate its claims and/or to show that WASC is wrong. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 10:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- And, indeed, the linked UoP press released doesn't even say 100,000. It says "The university currently enrolls more than 76,000 students from 200 countries – 6,000 of which are refugees – and expects to surpass 100,000 students by fall." Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please Modulato do not revert again a WP reliable source such as Time Magazine. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- ... which is clearly quoting a UoP source. After all, where else could they get the figure from? It doesn't appear anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- IPEDS is the solution. It is part of the US Department of Education. It is going to be the most authoritative, reliable, secondary source we can have on this. It reports 43,722 for Fall 2020. My previous comment contains the relevant links. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, see WP:LINKSINACHAIN:
If Alice writes down an idea, and Bob simply quotes her work, and Chris refers to Bob's quotation, and Daisy cites Chris, and so forth, you very likely have a string of primary sources, rather than one primary, one secondary, one tertiary, and all subsequent sources with made-up classification names.
Leijurv (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC) - You are confusing Time Magazine with Time Magazine's website. You can respond: "They are the same thing and they are equally authoritative". In theory it may be true, but in practice there are few problems. For example, I have access to the complete archive of Time Magazine (from 1923 to 2020), which does not contain the words "UoPeople" or "University of the People". It means that Time Magazine has never published any articles about this online school. On the other hand, UoPeople.edu is only interested in Time Magazine's website: this behavior is sometimes called "paying for clickbait online articles", but, since we can't know if they are sponsored articles (we have not seen the invoices yet), we can only say that "it is just a coincidence". Anyway, claiming that "it is true because Time Magazine said so" (Time Magazine's website to be exact), or because "CNN said so" (CNN's website to be exact) etc. is a weak argument, especially when well-known academic organizations, including WASC, do not confirm those claims. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- As a compromise then IPEDS source of 43,722 students for 2020 would be the one to use Weatherextremes (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- so why did UoPeople state they were 51000 in 2020, instead of 43000? It looks like these numbers are all invented. I could say 500,000, or 0. What a joke. 151.37.42.18 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- As a compromise then IPEDS source of 43,722 students for 2020 would be the one to use Weatherextremes (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- ... which is clearly quoting a UoP source. After all, where else could they get the figure from? It doesn't appear anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please Modulato do not revert again a WP reliable source such as Time Magazine. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Master of Science in Information Technology
The university offers an MSIT. I don't know why this cannot be included. Here is the information from the accrediting body.
https://deac.org/UploadedDocuments/Public-Notices/Accreditation-Actions/022822_AC_meeting_report.pdf
- We are not a brochure for them, do we list all their courses? Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Who determines what courses can be listed and what courses cannot? MythicalTom (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well one answer is none, as unless RS have decided this is uniquely significant deciding it would violate wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Which rule prevents the inclusion of this information? This seems without rule and arbitrary. MythicalTom (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added the information. It was deleted. I was told to use a reliable source. I used the university's website. It was deleted. I was told not to use a primary source. I used the accrediting body. It was deleted. I am told it is undue and promotional. You tell me Wikipedia is not a brochure. It seems the rules are completely arbitrary based on the way the winds are blowing. It would be nice to have a clear rule on whether including information about degrees offered by a university can be included or not. MythicalTom (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- So you were told this might violate a number of our policies, yes you ask which ones. By the way, the universities own site would violate wp:primary. No rule here can ever be cat iron, so we by by wp:consensus. IN order to add something to the article it must be considered by their party wp:rs as significant to the topic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Who is their party? Why is the accrediting body of the university not a reliable source? And what does significant to the topic mean? MythicalTom (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry typo, that should be "third party", unaffiliated with them. This is just a standard notice, it does not indicate it is in any way significant. Significant to the topic means it is a defining characteristic as decided by independent RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Who is their party? Why is the accrediting body of the university not a reliable source? And what does significant to the topic mean? MythicalTom (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- So you were told this might violate a number of our policies, yes you ask which ones. By the way, the universities own site would violate wp:primary. No rule here can ever be cat iron, so we by by wp:consensus. IN order to add something to the article it must be considered by their party wp:rs as significant to the topic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added the information. It was deleted. I was told to use a reliable source. I used the university's website. It was deleted. I was told not to use a primary source. I used the accrediting body. It was deleted. I am told it is undue and promotional. You tell me Wikipedia is not a brochure. It seems the rules are completely arbitrary based on the way the winds are blowing. It would be nice to have a clear rule on whether including information about degrees offered by a university can be included or not. MythicalTom (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Which rule prevents the inclusion of this information? This seems without rule and arbitrary. MythicalTom (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well one answer is none, as unless RS have decided this is uniquely significant deciding it would violate wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not seeing WP:DUE here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
NFTs and Crypto Payments
University of the People is offering NFTs for its degrees. It is also accepting crypto payments. https://www.itweb.co.za/content/GxwQD71Zjd1MlPVo TomReadsALot (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The university says it is accepting Bitcoin and Ethereum digital currencies." Wasn't it a "tuition-free university"?
"becoming a university of the future", "As the university of the future, it makes perfect sense" Usual WP:SPAM. --151.35.226.184 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC) - And? Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is unique. It could merit a mention in the article. TomReadsALot (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
DEAC and BizEd Sources
I do not understand the "too much primary" reasoning for the removal the DEAC and BizEd sources. Would someone please elaborate on this? I am new here, so please be gentle. ClevelandR (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
University of the People founder/president wins major award
Hiya! I'm Dana and I work on the content team for University of the People. The founder/president of University of the People recently won an award—The 2023 Yidan Prize for Education Development. It would be great to add this to the University of the People page. Here are some sources to confirm: https://yidanprize.org/laureates/shai-reshef https://apnews.com/article/yidan-prize-foundation-shai-reshef-michelene-chi-33e49c1c3ebbde526f9b55ff77f7656d https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/27/yidan-prize-foundation-shai-reshef-michelene-chi/d4c8ba28-5d5f-11ee-b961-94e18b27be28_story.html Thanks! Edudent (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- More appropriate for his biog. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Edudent (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was a sponsored article, removed by Washington Post. Spam. 151.37.197.220 (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)