Talk:WKPS

Achieving Verifiability & Neutral Point of View

Citations were added where necessary, but we would like to add more in order to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Much of the information included is archived by The Lion 90.7 FM and nowhere else; however, the Daily Collegian and audio archives can verify plenty of what's written. Please leave tips as you see fit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PunkRockRamone (talk • contribs) 16 December 2006 21:40 (UTC).

Hi, a couple of tips to help improve this article:

• "As faculty and academic involvement increased... The radio station endowed by former students to serve their interests was being turned into a faculty-run operation."

Sounds OK, but is public documentation of the increased control available?

• "A growing number of students, becoming aware of the situation and disillusioned with their options, decided to give student radio another try."

Is there a way to quantify "growing number"? (Tens or hundreds?) Have any of these students made any public comments that illustrate the word "disillusioned"?

• "Though this move would prove problematic for the radio station in the future.."
• "This academic year, however, would prove to be a difficult one for the radio station."

How so? Please be specific; don't keep readers guessing. Just say what needs to be said.

• "...Vice President Bill Asbury promising to provide funding support for an additional five years."

A pledge, a promise, or a contract? Word choice is an important. Documentation is a must here.

• "The relationship deteriorated rapidly. Jeff Brown, the station's paid adviser, quickly moved to promote the agenda of the College of Communications without regard to the station's stated goals."

This is an accusation: accusations do not belong in Wikipedia. (However, documentation of accusations made in primary sources is appropriate.)

• "...and because the faculty member's actions were illegal by state and federal laws, the Lion Riot created much controversy among students and administrators."

Sounds juicy, is there more to the story? Charges? Conviction? Without legal documentation this is an accusation.

• "...were a hit with a growing student and community audience of both State College residents and distant alumni."

"A hit" is casual terminology. Please keep the tone encyclopedic.

• "Though [Triponey] allegedly cited WKPS's flagship talk show Radio Free Penn State as the cause[4], she denied that its administratively-critical tack led to her decision."

Do you have a statement or press release from Student Affairs? Better to always use direct phrases and sources out of fairness to the speaker.

• "With policy proposals, fee allocation boards, and Penn State's constant restructuring of student-operated activities, the future of The Lion 90.7FM remains uncertain."

This is FUD.

Hope this helps, GChriss <always listening><c> 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, GC--

Thanks for the tips. I'll spend the next day or two going through and correcting most of these, although I'd likely contest a few. Your help is, of course, most appreciated. Check back frequently, I will reply to each condition you stipulated.

--BWP

---

Okay, a couple of things I'd contest a little... in italics.

• "As faculty and academic involvement increased... The radio station endowed by former students to serve their interests was being turned into a faculty-run operation."

Sounds OK, but is public documentation of the increased control available?

While I'm sure I could dig through archives and find documentation of "increased control," the end product speaks for itself--faculty ended up controlling the radio station, it became a University institution as opposed to a student-operated one, and the terms of this operation were expressly different than the stated goals of WDFM. That the radio station was "endowed by former students," is not contested, that its purpose was to "serve their interests" is implicit in the class of 1951's stated goals, which were more co-curricular than WKPS is today, and the end result--that the faculty now controlled the station's programming--is uncontested because it existed from that point on as such.

• "A growing number of students, becoming aware of the situation and disillusioned with their options, decided to give student radio another try."

Is there a way to quantify "growing number"? (Tens or hundreds?) Have any of these students made any public comments that illustrate the word "disillusioned"?

There's no way to make this statement entirely objective and quantitative; however, that does not necessarily degrade the article in terms of its credibility. Other than obtaining a quote from Ecker (from the Collegian or CDT), it's impossible to verify precisely whether or not students were indeed becoming "disillusioned;" once again, the end result, students created a new radio station, speaks for itself. A distinction needs to be drawn between journalistic writing and encyclopedic writing here. What aims are we attempting to achieve? The reason I ask is because, while obtaining an Ecker quote would certainly verify HIS opinion that a group of students became disillusioned, but would not verify that this was necessarily the case. A "growing number of students" can and will be taken to mean at least the number of students involved in the creation of the new station. Would you recommend an Ecker quote? How else can I verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.125.22 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi BWP, the key to understanding Wikipedia is to understand that: A) it is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and B) the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The text you have added is educational -- thank you. Please don't think of the above as demands, ultimatums, or stipulations but rather as things that are in need improvement (or removal). I'll help too. One more thing -- please carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, GC--

I've read and understood Wikipedia's article on conflicts of interest; however, there are very few people with the compiled information necessary to accomplish an undertaking of this size (as you see, we've uploaded quite a bit of content, and there's more on the way). Without a neutral third party to help verify, it's impossible to even assume the auspices of neutrality. That's where your help is invaluable. Please feel free to critique or even outright criticize--I will verify the information over time as I can. If you go to www.lion-radio.org, you will be able to find numerous news and audio links which will indubitably be of service to you. Thanks for the help--I shall continue posting as necessary.

BWP

Fair use rationale for Image:Wehr psu.gif

Image:Wehr psu.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lion Riot

Regarding the section recently deleted, I fail to see how it is "factually inaccurate" considering much of the information comes from the recording and news article http://voicesweb.org/archive/cu/wkps1101.html

To remove it is like saying it never happened and it didn't mean anything. That's complete bull crap. It obviously effected our relationship with the University and quite possibly our funding. Quite frankly, it's easily comparable to the NCAA's rescinding of JoePa's wins. It's just pretend. The events still happened. Hiding them won't make people forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg3300 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)