![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
I think points of Architecture should be merged into the "Campuses" and "Libraries and Museums" sections. Okeekobee ( talk) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
What sets this campus apart from most other university campuses in the world is its central location and the seamless way in which it segues into the rest of the city What is the basis for this statement? Many Universities are set in the centre of cities, and they often reflect the architecture of the time/place they were built and so generally fit seamlessly into their environments. I really don't think this is unusual at all.-- Alun 1 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
Aside from the gross indentation this section creates, we ought to resist the dubiously fashionable spread of these 'empirical' league tables. They have been demonstrated to favour certain kinds of institutions of higher education, they simplify and mislead the understanding of the institutions character and social place and, more importantly, only serve to turn wiki-pages into university advert brosures. Though the addition and effort is appreciated, I submit that paragraphed presentation of the institution's quality ought to be prefered. Thanks all the same. 81.129.7.241 ( talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Educational institutions established in the 1640s is itself a category within Category:1640 establishments — Robert Greer ( talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"As of August 1 2005, the University complies with the standards of the Europe-wide Bologna Process and offers Bachelor, Master, Licenciate, and Doctoral degrees.[1]"
Given the a) implicit ideological tendencies; b) the English language-culture bias; c) the empiricist fetishism; and d) the instrumental rationality inherent in the university rankings mentality (in theory and in praxis), I don't think it is in the interests of a considered and thoughtful article on the university's history and social context to include such 'statistics' here. To include them, aside from the critical reasons hinted above, is surely to make the first step in turning this unique online information compendium into a tacky university applications brochure that only serves vested interests, whether ideolodical or more concrete. (Welshentag) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.177.188 ( talk) 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Nicely written. While I agree with your reasoning, the unfortunate reality is that wikipedia is an information source. A large people researching Helsinki University will use Wikipedia, for a number of different reasons. A large chunk of these users will be considering going to the university, or will be interested in how their old university is doing. The ranking of the university is of interest to these people as it is informative - they can see if their university is declining, or progressing, or whether it's advisable to go there. Any information is valuable information, particularly given the fact that it is the norm to have a rankings section on university pages on Wikipedia. By deleting one that has been contributed you are denying the easy access of information that people arrive on this page expecting to see. (ArthurGD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurGD ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The fundamantal point is that, aside from the inherent prejudices in favour of large, scientific, multi-faculty, English-Speaking institutions, the very notion of applying a unilinear ranking is by necessity the creation an instrumental logic. Therefore, the 'rankings' merely empirically fetishise certain quantifiable variables. This means that the 'quality' of the university is NOT something to be found in the rankings. What the ranking are, are a discursive set of power relations that favour certain institutions and certain cultures of higher education over others, allowing certain imperatives of eco-cultural competition to colonise academic culture. These tendencies have to be resisted whenever and wherever because they are insidious and creeping. If you don't make a stand they become erosive in the long run.
More relevantly, the uni-linear rankings consistently present universities such as Helsinki (peripheral European culture, non-English speaking, socially oriented Humboldtian ethos etc...) unfavourably and unfairly. To put the argument in your mundane terms, 'the information is wrong'. It misrepresents, and it does so in regular, identifiable, and predictable ways. The greatest criticism levelled at wikipedia is that, as an intersubjectively constructed compendium, it will tend towards the lowest common denominator. In other words, without any clear editorial decision making, the general cultural and socio-economic tendencies of the times will colonise the encyclopedia without any agential descrimination of choice over quality. I'm not talking here about a need for an editorial 'power' or 'authority', that goes against the ethos of wikipedia. What I suggest is that contributors can be persuaded through discussion not to include certain types of highly contested, problematic, and potentially damaging 'information' in the interets of encyclopedic quality, impartiality, and in reistence to clearly identifiable discursive tendencies.
Perhaps you should bear in mind that, if people mostly come to this article to treat it like a brochure, to produce quality you shouldn't always give people what they want. Aside from this, if you really must include something, try the German CHE 'rankings'. Its more sophisticated, thoughtful, and it is NOT uni-linear. Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote before, I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.99.213 ( talk) 08:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We might want to separate the "notable people" section to "alumni", "faculty" etc. and state more clearly what is the relation of the person to the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.13.18 ( talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I just threw in teuvo teivainen there, but noticed there is a whole bunch of others missing that are probably quite more merited than bubi the sports journalist... perhaps someone who has more to do with this article might consider a "people related to the university of helsinki" listing article or category as many other universities of high academic merit have. Gillis ( talk) 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Karl Harald Felix Furuhjelm - Governor of the Siberian specific department, Russia.-- Peruanec ( talk) 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is Pekka Himanen on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.4.208 ( talk) 13:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to have a separate "people related to the university of helsinki" listing article: this info is directly related to University of Helsinki and does not need a separate entry. Eezacque ( talk) 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Noacer insists on having this on the article. Here is the HS article. I think this has so little to do with the university, that it does not merit a mentioning in the article; see WP:RECENTISM. The issue seems to be with unethical research practices of a single researcher and, is to my mind largely a matter between the academy and the individual, not so much with the university. -- hydrox ( talk) 17:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How does the incident relate to the history of the University as a whole? The paragraph should be rewritten or deleted. It reads like a news release. Okeekobee ( talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In University Chanchellor's reply published in Lancet he says that an independent investigation was conducted and no evidence for misconduct was found. At least it would be fair to add reference to that. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960022-1/fulltext.
But I think the paragraph could be deleted as well. The incident was hardly a major thing in the history of the university. I have never even heard of this whole incident before reading this article and replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AICrane ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The "Libraries and museums" section is missing information about:
- Cracklenose ( talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Anybody know where the colors in the infobox come from? The university's 2019 visual identity guideline states the following: The basic colours of the University of Helsinki are black and white. Blue is used as an accent colour. In exceptional cases, the flame logo can appear in silver in print.
The colors are given as Black , Blue , Silver , Light Grey and White .
Ljleppan (
talk) 14:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
I think points of Architecture should be merged into the "Campuses" and "Libraries and Museums" sections. Okeekobee ( talk) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
What sets this campus apart from most other university campuses in the world is its central location and the seamless way in which it segues into the rest of the city What is the basis for this statement? Many Universities are set in the centre of cities, and they often reflect the architecture of the time/place they were built and so generally fit seamlessly into their environments. I really don't think this is unusual at all.-- Alun 1 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
Aside from the gross indentation this section creates, we ought to resist the dubiously fashionable spread of these 'empirical' league tables. They have been demonstrated to favour certain kinds of institutions of higher education, they simplify and mislead the understanding of the institutions character and social place and, more importantly, only serve to turn wiki-pages into university advert brosures. Though the addition and effort is appreciated, I submit that paragraphed presentation of the institution's quality ought to be prefered. Thanks all the same. 81.129.7.241 ( talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Educational institutions established in the 1640s is itself a category within Category:1640 establishments — Robert Greer ( talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"As of August 1 2005, the University complies with the standards of the Europe-wide Bologna Process and offers Bachelor, Master, Licenciate, and Doctoral degrees.[1]"
Given the a) implicit ideological tendencies; b) the English language-culture bias; c) the empiricist fetishism; and d) the instrumental rationality inherent in the university rankings mentality (in theory and in praxis), I don't think it is in the interests of a considered and thoughtful article on the university's history and social context to include such 'statistics' here. To include them, aside from the critical reasons hinted above, is surely to make the first step in turning this unique online information compendium into a tacky university applications brochure that only serves vested interests, whether ideolodical or more concrete. (Welshentag) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.177.188 ( talk) 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Nicely written. While I agree with your reasoning, the unfortunate reality is that wikipedia is an information source. A large people researching Helsinki University will use Wikipedia, for a number of different reasons. A large chunk of these users will be considering going to the university, or will be interested in how their old university is doing. The ranking of the university is of interest to these people as it is informative - they can see if their university is declining, or progressing, or whether it's advisable to go there. Any information is valuable information, particularly given the fact that it is the norm to have a rankings section on university pages on Wikipedia. By deleting one that has been contributed you are denying the easy access of information that people arrive on this page expecting to see. (ArthurGD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurGD ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The fundamantal point is that, aside from the inherent prejudices in favour of large, scientific, multi-faculty, English-Speaking institutions, the very notion of applying a unilinear ranking is by necessity the creation an instrumental logic. Therefore, the 'rankings' merely empirically fetishise certain quantifiable variables. This means that the 'quality' of the university is NOT something to be found in the rankings. What the ranking are, are a discursive set of power relations that favour certain institutions and certain cultures of higher education over others, allowing certain imperatives of eco-cultural competition to colonise academic culture. These tendencies have to be resisted whenever and wherever because they are insidious and creeping. If you don't make a stand they become erosive in the long run.
More relevantly, the uni-linear rankings consistently present universities such as Helsinki (peripheral European culture, non-English speaking, socially oriented Humboldtian ethos etc...) unfavourably and unfairly. To put the argument in your mundane terms, 'the information is wrong'. It misrepresents, and it does so in regular, identifiable, and predictable ways. The greatest criticism levelled at wikipedia is that, as an intersubjectively constructed compendium, it will tend towards the lowest common denominator. In other words, without any clear editorial decision making, the general cultural and socio-economic tendencies of the times will colonise the encyclopedia without any agential descrimination of choice over quality. I'm not talking here about a need for an editorial 'power' or 'authority', that goes against the ethos of wikipedia. What I suggest is that contributors can be persuaded through discussion not to include certain types of highly contested, problematic, and potentially damaging 'information' in the interets of encyclopedic quality, impartiality, and in reistence to clearly identifiable discursive tendencies.
Perhaps you should bear in mind that, if people mostly come to this article to treat it like a brochure, to produce quality you shouldn't always give people what they want. Aside from this, if you really must include something, try the German CHE 'rankings'. Its more sophisticated, thoughtful, and it is NOT uni-linear. Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote before, I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.99.213 ( talk) 08:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We might want to separate the "notable people" section to "alumni", "faculty" etc. and state more clearly what is the relation of the person to the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.13.18 ( talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I just threw in teuvo teivainen there, but noticed there is a whole bunch of others missing that are probably quite more merited than bubi the sports journalist... perhaps someone who has more to do with this article might consider a "people related to the university of helsinki" listing article or category as many other universities of high academic merit have. Gillis ( talk) 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Karl Harald Felix Furuhjelm - Governor of the Siberian specific department, Russia.-- Peruanec ( talk) 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is Pekka Himanen on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.4.208 ( talk) 13:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to have a separate "people related to the university of helsinki" listing article: this info is directly related to University of Helsinki and does not need a separate entry. Eezacque ( talk) 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Noacer insists on having this on the article. Here is the HS article. I think this has so little to do with the university, that it does not merit a mentioning in the article; see WP:RECENTISM. The issue seems to be with unethical research practices of a single researcher and, is to my mind largely a matter between the academy and the individual, not so much with the university. -- hydrox ( talk) 17:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How does the incident relate to the history of the University as a whole? The paragraph should be rewritten or deleted. It reads like a news release. Okeekobee ( talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In University Chanchellor's reply published in Lancet he says that an independent investigation was conducted and no evidence for misconduct was found. At least it would be fair to add reference to that. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960022-1/fulltext.
But I think the paragraph could be deleted as well. The incident was hardly a major thing in the history of the university. I have never even heard of this whole incident before reading this article and replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AICrane ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The "Libraries and museums" section is missing information about:
- Cracklenose ( talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Anybody know where the colors in the infobox come from? The university's 2019 visual identity guideline states the following: The basic colours of the University of Helsinki are black and white. Blue is used as an accent colour. In exceptional cases, the flame logo can appear in silver in print.
The colors are given as Black , Blue , Silver , Light Grey and White .
Ljleppan (
talk) 14:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)