User talk:Qqawestry

Institute for Learning modification

Dear John d'Purbrook,

I saw you have been editing quite a lot the Institute for Learning article, that you created. In fact, it seems (for the moment at least) that you have been removing a lot of referenced material without specifying why.

My initial reaction would be to undo your modifications to restore the article as it was before. However, since you created it, I was wondering if you could give an explanation of your modifications, either in the edit summary of your edit, or on the talk page: Talk:Institute for Learning.

Thanks in advance,

Xionbox^₪ 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Institute for Learning with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Learning

This page is under repeated 'attack' from a small group of individuals intent on editing it to bring the organisation into disrepute. As the creator I have no idea how to prevent this, other than to repeatedly delete the content - which I am now unable to do. Your advice would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Learning — Preceding unsigned comment added by John d'Purbrook (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as of such it covers all relevant andreliably sourced information regarding a certain subject in a neutral and unbiased manner. This means that Wikipedia will always contain information that may be deemed positive or negative. Most article's have criticism weaved into their main text structure, but some article's may contain a separate section that details the critique.

Where i am going with this explanation? Looking at the article itself i note that the criticism section is rather substantial, but i do note it seems to be entirely sourced. As of such i see no reason why all the negative content should be removed outright. It is possible to challenge the neutrality of the sourcing, but at the very least people can verify where the information originally came from - thus allowing them to draw their own conclusions as to the worth of the critique. I do note that the critique is rather long and substantial in regards to the rest of the article, so it may be an idea to trim it down to the most relevant cases, removing any overlap. For example, "Increase in Membership Fees" seems to overlap entirely with "Surplus Funds", while other sections of the criticism seem to be fairly irrelevant\trivial or overly drawn out.

One thing i would mention, is that article's are not owned by anyone. This means that article's may be adapted over time, and that their content may change radically - at times not to the liking of some interested parties. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

That certainly helps to explain why Wiki is considered by most researchers and academics to be a farce — Preceding unsigned comment added by John d'Purbrook (talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:NPOV is a double edged knife in most cases - If you wish a neutral representation of a subject, it requires all viewpoints and all available information, both positive and negative. The result of this is that article's may not be as positive regarding a certain subject as people hope at times.

As i stated before i believe that the negative content of the page is overly long and should be trimmed down - same goes with the external links section. However, as long as criticism is valid and correctly sourced, it should not be removed entirely (Keyword being entirely). I do question the necessity and purpose of your above comment though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the most effective way forward would be to engage in discussion about the page, what needs to be included, what needs to be removed, edited and adjusted (I agree that there are sections which overlap and could communicate the information more precisely - in addition, some of the "corporate blurb" at the begining lacks citations and independent referencing, and could also be improved) - the correct place for this is the talk page of the entry, as advised 25th March. As one of the other contributors, I would be very happy to engage in discussion as to the content of the page, and I'm sure the others would be too. Sonicslice (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

Hi, I've reverted back the changes you have made to this talk page, could you please take a read of the talk pages guidelines, take note and respect them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

In particular, this section: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."

Regards,

Sonicslice (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)