Jump to content

User talk:Ticktock01

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

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Ticktock01, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Ticktock01, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giving undue weight to rankings

[edit]

I can't find nearly as many secondary- or tertiary-source references to the "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" as to the other rankings commonly included in Rankings sections, such as the U.S. News and World Report or Forbes. If you can't find evidence that it's common for qualified commentators to consider it equally important, our policy about WP:Undue weight states it shouldn't be included while we leave out the hundreds of similar rankings. I'm sorry to have to tell you so much of your early work doesn't seem constructive, but policies must be followed or Wikipedia could easily turn into a mess of opinions and promotions. FourViolas (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pretend to know what you're talking about, I just found tons of secondary and tertiary sources on the Social Mobility Index with a simple Google search. Sorry.--Ticktock01 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tons" of sources is quite an exaggeration. The "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" was created October 2014, so it has only a small fraction of the Google references that long-established rankings like US News & World Report, ARWU, Forbes, QS, Times Higher Education, Kiplinger etc. have. The prominence you give it in your editorial contributions does indeed conflict with WP:Undue weight, as I also pointed out to you on my Talk page. Contributor321 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tons is not an exaggeration. Also, your justification for your ranking of the rankings seems to be that if something is older then it is better. Sorry, but that's not valid.--Ticktock01 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TickTock, you're new here; adding material -- even if sourced -- to articles contrary to established consensus doesn't go over very well per WP:CONSENSUS. When you add something to an article, and another editor deletes it, the proper course of action is to discuss the proposed changes per WP:BRD. As for your particular edits, and the arguments above, U.S. News and other long-established university rating services are the gold standard of such college ratings. I have never heard of the SMI ratings you are inserting into Wikipedia university articles, and when you are adding SMI rating to dozens of university articles, and giving them a prominence in the edited text above those of the established ratings, it appears that you may be a "single-purpose account" per WP:SPA, engaged in promotional activities on behalf of SMI. Engaging in SPA promotional activities in Wikipedia can get you blocked from further editing. I strongly urge you to take this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities discussion page before you add any more SMI rating to Wikipedia university and college articles. Until this is discussed at some length with other editors, I am removing the SMI data from the University of Florida article and any others on my watch list. Please proceed carefully -- I will be alerting the Wikipedia community of what appears to be your promotional activities. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations seem very aggressive and clearly unfounded given the fact that adding college rankings appears to be very accepted practice on Wikipedia as nearly every college page I've been on has various college rankings. They didn't get there by magic; obviously someone had to put them on here.--Ticktock01 (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others who have made comments here. Improvements to Wikipedia articles are based on consensus. You now have several editors telling you that they disagree with your pattern of edits. It is up to you to convince your fellow editors that adding these new SMI ratings to a large number of university articles is an improvement to those articles. If, by chance, you have any personal connection to the SMI ratings, then you have a conflict of interest which you should disclose. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that I've now encountered several individuals that have a personal problem with the Social Mobility Index. Very interesting.--Ticktock01 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Social Mobility Index doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, let alone an entry in Template:Infobox US university ranking. There is no hurry to create such an article or add the hundreds of these rankings to these articles, it is OK to wait until it becomes notable (or indeed other rankings beat it to notability.) I don't wish to discourage you from editing, so please pick something else to work on. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that it's not clear to any of us how reliable the index is. I know my institution isn't paying any attention to it, and our ratings are routinely circulated by our PA people. That says something noteworthy to me. I want to see some discussion and external validation of their methodology before I pay any attention to their ratings. --Drmargi (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at ANI

[edit]

Your edits have been mentioned at WP:ANI. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ticktock01&oldid=666212421"