This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
The very formulation "what is it about" betrays its own unencyclopedic bias. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The LE information presented in this article is mirrored on the corporate website.
This article is more or less an advert, repeating the LE course syllabus and information available on their website. The Landmark litigation article, however, is what it is.
I haven't seen a consensus reached. I just don't see the possibility of an accurate, NPOV article. I think the topic would be best-served by deletion for all parties involved.
LE has it's own website for a reason...the wiki entry just adds a self-serving bump below in google searches.
Support? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion. The wiki article as it is now is just an advertisement. I saw it a while back when it had some balanced topics such as "Controversies" "Complaints about LE" etc. Now the wiki page looks like suddenly there are no more controversies and complaints about LE from the human population.
The term "Wiki" implies collectively adding information from many sources. Either this page should encompass that, or this page should be deleted and people can check out the LE website on their own. -- 24.16.70.72 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think deletion is the ideal answer, but it is a feasible answer, and better solutions have all ended in gridlock. If you ever nominate it for deletion, let me know, I don't watch the page very closely. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a separate defined "controversies" section: different viewpoints on Landmark Education may crop up at any point in the article. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
On 2005-10-13 an editor made a suggestion about the overall structure of the article see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 1. The proposal came to nothing.
On 2007-01-19 an editor made suggestions about the the overall structure of the article, proposing an overarching schema which might have left several lively areas of discussion without a home: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 6. The proposals did not gain consensus: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 7. But on 2007-08-14 remarkably similar-sounding proposals re-surfaced.
If a desire exists to re-litigate certain points, perhaps we could highlight such points, taking into account the water that has flowed under the bridge and the overall thrust of discussions in the Wikipedia community. My take: grandiose overviews may sound fine, but they can impose a limiting structure, ill-suited to the fluidity of our multi-editor body, Specific lists and formulations can distort the debates and distract us from directly and collectively improving the text of the article, which can grow and multiply organically outside any straightjacket.
-- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
The very formulation "what is it about" betrays its own unencyclopedic bias. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The LE information presented in this article is mirrored on the corporate website.
This article is more or less an advert, repeating the LE course syllabus and information available on their website. The Landmark litigation article, however, is what it is.
I haven't seen a consensus reached. I just don't see the possibility of an accurate, NPOV article. I think the topic would be best-served by deletion for all parties involved.
LE has it's own website for a reason...the wiki entry just adds a self-serving bump below in google searches.
Support? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion. The wiki article as it is now is just an advertisement. I saw it a while back when it had some balanced topics such as "Controversies" "Complaints about LE" etc. Now the wiki page looks like suddenly there are no more controversies and complaints about LE from the human population.
The term "Wiki" implies collectively adding information from many sources. Either this page should encompass that, or this page should be deleted and people can check out the LE website on their own. -- 24.16.70.72 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think deletion is the ideal answer, but it is a feasible answer, and better solutions have all ended in gridlock. If you ever nominate it for deletion, let me know, I don't watch the page very closely. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a separate defined "controversies" section: different viewpoints on Landmark Education may crop up at any point in the article. -- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
On 2005-10-13 an editor made a suggestion about the overall structure of the article see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 1. The proposal came to nothing.
On 2007-01-19 an editor made suggestions about the the overall structure of the article, proposing an overarching schema which might have left several lively areas of discussion without a home: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 6. The proposals did not gain consensus: see Talk:Landmark Education/Archive 7. But on 2007-08-14 remarkably similar-sounding proposals re-surfaced.
If a desire exists to re-litigate certain points, perhaps we could highlight such points, taking into account the water that has flowed under the bridge and the overall thrust of discussions in the Wikipedia community. My take: grandiose overviews may sound fine, but they can impose a limiting structure, ill-suited to the fluidity of our multi-editor body, Specific lists and formulations can distort the debates and distract us from directly and collectively improving the text of the article, which can grow and multiply organically outside any straightjacket.
-- Pedant17 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)