 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Edit: 03:28, 26 September 2022 Mikecurry1 talk contribs 40,375 bytes +84 →International rankings: added standard infobox
editIs this really appropriate for HEC? I see it as a good addition for schools which have an MBA as their flagship or most significant programme. But HEC does not. It is largely driven by the MIM Grandes Ecole program and has been for the duration of it's existence.
It's a bit misleading to have MBA rankings pulled out as especially significant when they are also covered in the wider adjacent "rankings" table. You don't judge Wharton by it's under grad ranking.. or HBS by its Exec Ed.
I like us to consider a revert. It's a very Anglo normative way of signifying the importance of the school - and misses entirely the cultural diversity of the Grandes Ecoles system as a part of the wider business school eco system. 24.141.240.103 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Request for feedback
editDear all. I hope you are doing well. Please what do you think about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1249231390&oldid=1244886612 ; It looks like an article destroyed. Please do not hesitate to modify the article directly. I am not sure what to do. Thanks a lot in advance. Kind Regards. 110.232.86.40 (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello 110.232 et cetera. Creating an WP:ACCOUNT has a bunch of advantages, and calling a human being "110.232.86.40" is a bit weird (creating an account is encouraged but not required, and you don't have to use your real name). I saw you put a bunch of stuff back, but at least some of the stuff was duplicated and some of it contained WP:PEACOCKery so let's discuss it bit by bit and form a WP:CONSENSUS on what to restore to the article, ok? I will also invite @S0091: here. Polygnotus (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- here the MIM ranking in FT was mentioned, but that is already in the table, right? And while it was #1 in 2023 it was #2 in 2024, so it is not really WP:NPOV to highlight only 2023.
- Regarding this edit, I don't think we need to specify where it is located geographically relative to other cities and which forms of public transport are available. That sounds rather promotional.
- This edit mentions the online stuff for a third time, it is already mentioned twice, maybe we can consolidate all three into a single mention?
- In popular culture sections are not really suitable for educational institutions imho. More for stuff like the Kraken in popular culture or Voodoo in popular culture or something like that.
- This edit contains a bunch of marketing speak which is rather unencyclopedic. Polygnotus (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this but I think some of the references in the infobox can be removed if the data they support is mentioned and cited in the article and non-controversial. See also MOS:INFOBOXCITE. Polygnotus (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Have you read WP:COI and WP:PAID? What is your relation with HEC? Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dear all. I have just seen this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1251076861&oldid=1251045915 ; So I quit, Wikipedia is not very serious or it is a place when anybody can do vandalism. Have a very nice day. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- 110.232.86.40, removal of material based on a desire to improve the article is definitely *not* vandalism. I've restored this material for the time being, but you need to work with other editors here to improve the structure, which they find organizationally lacking. I will mention this at your Talk page to make sure you are aware.
- Also, I have taken the liberty of changing your section heading to Request for feedback, as the term Request for comment has a very special meaning at Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Polygnotus, this IP is being challenged for the same reasons on fr:wp. See this request to the administrators. Matpib (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Matpib: Thank you! I am aware of that, but I don't think that @Mathglot: is. The IP seems to have very strong opinions about a very boring topic which is usually how you can tell someone has a conflict of interest. And I see a bunch of IPv6's that act similarly. Polygnotus (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Did I act too hastily? Sounds like I will have to study this further (plus I automatically cast a jaded eye at stuff coming over from fr-wiki, where sourcing enforcement is often weak), but in the meantime, if there appears to be a forming consensus that the article is better with the material removed, I won't stand in the way. If it is removed again, it would help me understand if someone could address the issue of the removed material being liberally sourced with citations: are they unreliable, UNDUE, irrelevant to the topic, or how exactly do we justify the removal in that case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Polygnotus and @Mathglot, apologies for my absence in this discussion. I know this was all prompted by my removal unsourced or poorly sourced/promotional content and while I am usually responsive, I am currently busy IRL so have only popped in here and there in recent weeks. Going from memory, I came across the article due to McSyl's sock block who also created several HEC adjacent articles, now most moved to draft and noticed the master BobVillars along with other socks and likely IP socks had been the only editors to edit the article in the past year or more so took a look and did some cleanup. I strongly agree with you, Polygnotus, that the IP above, along with the others, has a COI (and may be evading a block) so should not be editing the article directly but rather making edit requests. I don't have time right now to look at the IPs most recent updates though but I do recall some of the sources I had reviewed from my previous removal were clearly profiles written by HEC on questionable sites and/or otherwise their statements about themselves so not secondary independent reliable sources. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Both: Real life is always more important than Wikipedia. Looks like the suspicious activity I found was only the top of a rather large iceberg. Some do seem to get better at hiding, I ran across someone who made a few pointless but innocuous changes near the top of the article to hide the bad stuff below (hoping people wouldn't scroll down to see the diff in its entirety), although that might be survivorship bias because Cluebot is so effective. @Mathglot: I regularly come across promising new editors tho (see User:PolygnotusTest); I could send them (or their usernames) your way. Polygnotus (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Turns out that 110.232.86.40 is on a blocked proxy, so unless they get off VPN or register, we probably won't be hearing from them. Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Polygnotus and @Mathglot, apologies for my absence in this discussion. I know this was all prompted by my removal unsourced or poorly sourced/promotional content and while I am usually responsive, I am currently busy IRL so have only popped in here and there in recent weeks. Going from memory, I came across the article due to McSyl's sock block who also created several HEC adjacent articles, now most moved to draft and noticed the master BobVillars along with other socks and likely IP socks had been the only editors to edit the article in the past year or more so took a look and did some cleanup. I strongly agree with you, Polygnotus, that the IP above, along with the others, has a COI (and may be evading a block) so should not be editing the article directly but rather making edit requests. I don't have time right now to look at the IPs most recent updates though but I do recall some of the sources I had reviewed from my previous removal were clearly profiles written by HEC on questionable sites and/or otherwise their statements about themselves so not secondary independent reliable sources. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Did I act too hastily? Sounds like I will have to study this further (plus I automatically cast a jaded eye at stuff coming over from fr-wiki, where sourcing enforcement is often weak), but in the meantime, if there appears to be a forming consensus that the article is better with the material removed, I won't stand in the way. If it is removed again, it would help me understand if someone could address the issue of the removed material being liberally sourced with citations: are they unreliable, UNDUE, irrelevant to the topic, or how exactly do we justify the removal in that case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Matpib: Thank you! I am aware of that, but I don't think that @Mathglot: is. The IP seems to have very strong opinions about a very boring topic which is usually how you can tell someone has a conflict of interest. And I see a bunch of IPv6's that act similarly. Polygnotus (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Polygnotus, this IP is being challenged for the same reasons on fr:wp. See this request to the administrators. Matpib (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)