Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The MIT article has just been worked over with successive additions, reversions, and new additions, all to promote its lofty achievement of high ratings by various magazine articles. This gets so tedious. For the record, I will stipulate that MIT, along with Caltech probably, are the two best science schools in the nation. That said, there are a group of editors, usually hiding behind anonymity, who insist on bloviating on over these rankings and engaging in Citation overkill
Those who do this may think they are serving the interest of their favored school. However, many of us take umbrage (for those who didn't attend Hah-vard, MIT or Yale, that means "become annoyed about"), as I was saying, we take umbrage about the endless, pestering small edits, adding one reference at a time, then fixing it, then correcting a double space, then another typo, then another word, and then starting all over again with yet another reference. I care about clarity and substance, and so like many other reviewers I read these edits, and compare them each step along the way. There are a couple of schools that collect these ponderous edits like fleas on a dog - Georgia, Wayne State, every stinkin' one of the Ivy League articles, and now MIT, Stanford and Cal. Every day these seem to have a slough of additional, pedantic edits to review. --Just to declare that they are special.
Many of us take further umbrage at editors who hide behind anonymity. Yes, Wikipedia allows Anon to edit. But the hard truth is, many of us start our review of Anon's work with a negative bias, as if we might assume they are hiding something, like a connection to the school's media department, perhaps?
Time to create a real user account, with a Talk page that invites dialog, and to declare your conflicts of interest. Everyone has 'em. Jax MN ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
MIT has just said that it will not give academic suspensions to students who physically prevented Jewish students from entering the campus.
The school originally said it would give out academic suspensions. However, after protestors complained that this would lead to loss of their visas, and that they would get deported, the school changed its mind.
I think this should be mentioned in one of MIT related articles, but I'm not sure which article would be best.
What do others think?
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear @ GuardianH: and @ ElKevbo:, I was wondering if you could advise me on how to expand the “Rankings” section (I would also like to change it to “Reputation and rankings”) here. From the Stanford talk page, I gather that I may need material explicitly supporting the position that MIT’s reputation for innovation, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world (if eventually permitted back in, I wish to revise the lede statement to include wealth). This is what I have collected so far (pardon me for the messiness):
Let me know if any of these may help to resolve the WP:DUE body weight issue previously encountered!
Cheers, Marcustcii ( talk) 13:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Says "As of October 2023, 101 Nobel laureates [...] have been affiliated with MIT", but the linked list includes only 24 such laureates. The linked list does include a disclaimer about different methods of counting and possible consequent "inconsistency" in numbers, but 101 to 24 seems a blatant contradiction rather than an "inconsistency". 2A00:23C8:7B0C:9A01:AD4B:6795:4308:4857 ( talk) 01:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The MIT article has just been worked over with successive additions, reversions, and new additions, all to promote its lofty achievement of high ratings by various magazine articles. This gets so tedious. For the record, I will stipulate that MIT, along with Caltech probably, are the two best science schools in the nation. That said, there are a group of editors, usually hiding behind anonymity, who insist on bloviating on over these rankings and engaging in Citation overkill
Those who do this may think they are serving the interest of their favored school. However, many of us take umbrage (for those who didn't attend Hah-vard, MIT or Yale, that means "become annoyed about"), as I was saying, we take umbrage about the endless, pestering small edits, adding one reference at a time, then fixing it, then correcting a double space, then another typo, then another word, and then starting all over again with yet another reference. I care about clarity and substance, and so like many other reviewers I read these edits, and compare them each step along the way. There are a couple of schools that collect these ponderous edits like fleas on a dog - Georgia, Wayne State, every stinkin' one of the Ivy League articles, and now MIT, Stanford and Cal. Every day these seem to have a slough of additional, pedantic edits to review. --Just to declare that they are special.
Many of us take further umbrage at editors who hide behind anonymity. Yes, Wikipedia allows Anon to edit. But the hard truth is, many of us start our review of Anon's work with a negative bias, as if we might assume they are hiding something, like a connection to the school's media department, perhaps?
Time to create a real user account, with a Talk page that invites dialog, and to declare your conflicts of interest. Everyone has 'em. Jax MN ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
MIT has just said that it will not give academic suspensions to students who physically prevented Jewish students from entering the campus.
The school originally said it would give out academic suspensions. However, after protestors complained that this would lead to loss of their visas, and that they would get deported, the school changed its mind.
I think this should be mentioned in one of MIT related articles, but I'm not sure which article would be best.
What do others think?
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear @ GuardianH: and @ ElKevbo:, I was wondering if you could advise me on how to expand the “Rankings” section (I would also like to change it to “Reputation and rankings”) here. From the Stanford talk page, I gather that I may need material explicitly supporting the position that MIT’s reputation for innovation, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world (if eventually permitted back in, I wish to revise the lede statement to include wealth). This is what I have collected so far (pardon me for the messiness):
Let me know if any of these may help to resolve the WP:DUE body weight issue previously encountered!
Cheers, Marcustcii ( talk) 13:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Says "As of October 2023, 101 Nobel laureates [...] have been affiliated with MIT", but the linked list includes only 24 such laureates. The linked list does include a disclaimer about different methods of counting and possible consequent "inconsistency" in numbers, but 101 to 24 seems a blatant contradiction rather than an "inconsistency". 2A00:23C8:7B0C:9A01:AD4B:6795:4308:4857 ( talk) 01:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)