Wikipedia

Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive 4

< Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jax MN in topic This fixation on rankings
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The Institute is traditionally known for...

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Propose to change:

The Institute is traditionally known for its research and education in the physical sciences and engineering, and more recently in biology, economics, linguistics, and management as well.

to:

The Institute is traditionally known for its research and education in the physical sciences and engineering, and more recently in architecture, biology, linguistics, management, and the social sciences (anthropology, economics, political science, philosophy) as well.

to reflect rankings and departments' prestige in recent years:

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_School_of_Architecture_and_Planning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.121.205.122 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that the sentence seems to be mentioning nearly every discipline and once it does that then it ceases to have meaning and should just be completely rewritten. I also object to including "philosophy" as a social science when it's clearly a humanities discipline. ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I checked again and it seems the ranking refers to economics, political science, anthropology, urban planning, communication, and business (http://shass.mit.edu/news/news-2015-mit-named-no-1-university-worldwide-social-sciences). I still think this should somehow be included; it is pretty unusual for a engineering and life science school to be continuously ranked among the best social sciences schools, as well. 186.121.205.122 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The intro is supposed to summarize the highlights of the article, which does not currently mention the ranking of the MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences in the section Massachusetts Institute of Technology#University rankings. Once the relevant facts and refs are added there, I think it may be appropriate to add a concise summary to the intro, as it is indeed quite notable for a STEM-focused school to have several top-ranked SHASS departments as well. (At MIT, philosophy is linked to linguistics in a single department under the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences.)
Also, I would like to point out a few reference resources listed under #Proposed merge with MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (it's currently at the top of this Talk page, but may eventually be archived separately). As pointed out, the MIT SHASS stub article needs much more development, but is very worthy of expansion. Reify-tech (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Those are all fair points. If this material is added to the lead then the sentence and surrounding paragraph needs to be rewritten; we can't simply continue adding on to the same older material and expect it to remain readable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Discoveries and innovation" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the arbitrarily-selected and less-relevant pointers to 4 other universities from the head of this subsection, because it is likely to grow without reasonable limits over time, and to be the subject of unnecessary editorial disputation at this location. While the 4 universities picked are indeed known for innovation, so are many others, such as Harvard, Yale, Harvey Mudd, Cambridge University, SUT, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, etc. There is little reason to advertise an arbitrary (and very likely to expand) list of other schools here, just because this is a high-visibility article about one particular innovative school.

If somebody insists that other innovative universities be referenced, I suggest that they create an article such as "List of innovative discoveries made by universities" or something of the like. Such an article may already exist, for all I know. At most, I would concede a single "See also" Wikilink pointer to such an article, as the most that could be tolerated here. I suspect that the inclusion and ordering of schools in the list article will be the subject of unending discussion and churn, and the length of the list will grow to huge proportions over time. Whatever, all that discussion doesn't belong here, cluttering up an article that is supposed to focus on a single university called "MIT".

While I'm on the subject, the list of innovations here needs some better organization and criteria for inclusion. Perhaps chronological order would lend some historical perspective to a list prone to WP:RECENTISM. To keep the length within reasonable bounds, there needs to be some kind of WP:NOTABILITY requirement; I suggest that a Wikipedia article must already exist, and be of at least "B" rating to qualify. This would imply that the discovery developed into something significant over time, and involvement of MIT people could be well-documented. Any other suggestions? Reify-tech (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Alumni pictures

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A few more pictures of alumni could be added, with worldwide historical notability and diversity as criteria for inclusion. I suggest the pioneers of information theory (Claude Shannon), chaos theory (Edward Norton Lorenz), inertial navigation (Charles Stark Draper), and stroboscopy (Harold Eugene Edgerton). Also, some women alumnae such as pioneer of public health and home economics Ellen Swallow Richards, and former United States Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall, should be considered. Any other suggestions? Reify-tech (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky, pioneer theoretician of generative linguistics, among other accomplishments. Actio (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Odd choice of target page links and formatting in summary

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I think some changes could be made with the choice of target page links like:

Removing:

  • Astronauts doesn't add much and definitely not relevant to the summary
  • Trillion this is a fairly common term and not overly relevant to the summary

Adding:

  • applied science , Knowing what applied science is can add alot to understanding MIT

Formatting:

  • In the line "MIT is often ranked among the world's top universities", I would suggest removing "often". As long as the references are there having a timestamp is unnecessary. WP:VERIFY

What do you all think? --Moss6 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The pictures shown are oddly unrepresentative of the diversity of MIT alumni. For starters there is only one woman, when the student body is approaching a 50/50 mix. There is adequate mention of politicians and astronauts, but relatively few practicing engineers, scientists, teachers, or entrepreneurs.

Here are some preliminary suggestions:

  • Claude Shannon – mathematician, electrical engineer, and cryptographer known as "the father of information theory"
  • Edward Norton Lorenz – mathematician, meteorologist, MIT professor emeritus, invented chaos theory, discovered Lorenz attractor
  • Harold Eugene "Doc" Edgerton –- inventor, stroboscopic and high-speed photography, Oscar winner 1940
  • Radia Perlman – computer scientist, network engineer, invented numerous data network technologies, "mother of the Internet"
  • John Maeda – former president of Rhode Island School of Design (2008–2013), graphic designer, computer scientist, author, venture capitalist

Other suggestions are welcome! Reify-tech (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

make page: Uneven tree development (computing)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding "prestige"

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There has been some discussion lately regarding the violation of WP:BOOST guidelines with the description of university reputation. Similar discussions were had on peer institutions such as Harvard University, Cambridge University, and Stanford University, and a well cited, neural representation was deemed acceptable. In view of the other university pages which have to be found in compliance with this phrasing, this section has been reworded and further substantiated to be consistent with the standard.

On a side note, I don't think there is too much puffery associated with this, and based on various credible sources, metrics etc it seems to be consistent usage.

I don't know if this fits with above, but re: "puffery," I tried to confirm a minor edit that had be made to the opening part of the page, but was caught by a bot. There is a sentence about MIT being "widely known for its innovation." In light of recent events, isn't it (a) a little bit silly and classist to say it's "widely known" for "innovation"? and also (b) why settle for a buzzword when "technological advancements" would do? I guess more to the point: Among my circles, MIT is "widely known" for being close to the Defense Department, interlinking with Epstein networks, and also as a major real estate developer. I don't see these aspects highlighted anywhere in this article, it is all sunny puffery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosieBusia (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Search for possible origin of parallel resistor notation (R1∥R2) at MIT in 1970s

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, in the Parallel (operator) article we are trying to track down the origin of the usage of the parallel symbol "∥" to notify parallel resistors etc. in electrical engineering, or more specifically the usage of the "∥" symbol as an operator to indicate a so called parallel sum, i.e. R1∥R2=R1*R2/(R1+R2).

Background: So far, we tracked down the origin of the "∥" symbol for "parallel" in geometry to John Kersey the elder in 1673. The exact origin of the usage of this symbol for parallel resistors in engineering, however, is not yet known, but would be interesting to know: We have narrowed down the window in time to somewhen between 1956 (when the mathematical operator was first suggested in network theory, although the authors then still used other symbols like "∗", ":" or "∙" for it) and 1981 (when "∥" could be found being used for it in John W. McWane's influential book "Introduction to Electronics and Instrumentation").

McWane's book was based on the "MIT Technical Curriculum Development Project - Introduction to Electronics and Instrumentation" program, which took place between 1974 and 1979 at MIT. In the research on network theory most authors used the ":" symbol up into the early 1970s (and sometimes even up to the present), but perhaps "∥" was already used during this program. (Possibly, but not necessarily related keywords: "Bruce D. Wedlock", "Basic Circuit Networks", "Technical Curriculum Research and Development Project", "MIT Center of Advanced Engineering Study".) The usage of "∥" for this might therefore have started somewhen in the mid-1970s in the USA at or near MIT, something that would be great to find out.

So, if you can find the "∥" symbol being used in this context in sources (MIT related or not) older than 1981 it would be great if you could mention your source in the related thread at the parallel operator article talk page.

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any information to help you but "group of Wikipedia editors searching for primary sources to establish the origin or earliest use of a symbol" sounds an awful lot like original research. ElKevbo (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I see your point, but that depends on what we'll find and make out of it - of course, we have to be careful.
The fact that we need to research this to find an answer does not necessarily mean that the statements that will eventually be used in the article would need original research as well.
To give an example of what can/could be done without OR, the date of introduction of the parallel sum operator is sourced to be 1956 in a secondary RS, and the known usage of ∥ for this operation is given by the existance of a 1981 book, a primary RS good enough to prove a simple fact such as this one. This does not prove a statement like "it originated at MIT", but it is good enough for something like "was introduced between 1956 and 1981".
If we'd now find out that the symbol was already used by the predecessor to McWane's book we could further narrow down the time frame following the same scheme. A predecessor using this symbol might contain a note on the origin (after all, the usage must still have been relatively new at this time, thus requiring some explanation). If so, we could cite that source or at least use it to derive new keywords helping to identify further sources. Or, someone might find the symbol being used in an earlier work or with no relation to MIT. Then we'd know that the usage of this symbol likely did not originate at MIT and are even able to further narrow down the time frame as well. And so on...
It's also possible that this endeavour will lead nowhere at all - but we will never know what will be the outcome until we try.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Funding from the Department of Defense

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several books describe how a predominant majority of the MIT's funding in the 1960s came from the DoD. Yet in the article the DoD is mentioned only for a minor role in the 1930s and one employee later. Two famous articles on the topic are:

Nemo 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Template

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Posting here because the talk page for the template does not seem to be well-frequented. Shouldn't the template box for MIT mention either the Charles Draper Lab, the Apollo Guidance Computer (under notable projects) or both? Draper lab was still part of MIT when it produced the Apollo Guidance Computer --207.180.170.2 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over "prestige" in the lede

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An unregistered editor has begun an edit war to remove the following material from the lede of this article:

...and is widely known for its innovation and academic strength, making it one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world.[1][2][3][4]

He or she is claiming that "Rankings do not claim it is 'one of the most prestigious universities in the world'. This is puffery and not appropriate for the lede."

I disagree. First, the information is well-sourced (even though information in the lede shouldn't really be sourced as it should be a summary of what's in the body of the article). In fact, several of the sources explicitly focus on "prestige" so the first of these two claims is patently false. Second, there are a handful of universities that are so prestigious that it's essential that readers be informed of that fact as it's a defining feature of the institution and its place in the larger surrounding culture and history. As the sources demonstrate, MIT is one of those institutions. It would be a huge mistake - and likely a POV problem itself - if we omitted this information from the lede of the article.

In any case, it's inappropriate to edit war over this especially without opening a discussion in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it absolutely hilarious that a guy with degrees from bottom rung of the ladder universities thinks he can make a final judgement on which "handful of schools" are prestigious enough to justify a mention on their Wikipedia. Aren't Ivy League schools and MIT a little bit out of your league? No pun intended. Please provide the source that explicitly defines this "handful" of schools and then you can include it in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.195.50 (talk • contribs) 02:39, January 18, 2020 (UTC)
The provided sources specifically address the topic for this institution. Address the topic at hand or stop wasting our time. ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "World's 10 most prestigious universities 2016". THE World University Rankings. Times Higher Education.
  2. ^ Smith, Matthew (May 2016). "The 24 most prestigious universities in the world, according to Times Higher Education". Business Insider.
  3. ^ Denham, Jess. "So why is MIT number one in the world university rankings?". Independent.
  4. ^ David Altaner (March 9, 2011). "Harvard, MIT Ranked Most Prestigious Universities, Study Reports". Bloomberg. Retrieved March 1, 2012.

As an uninvolved editor, I'll concur with @ElKevbo:. Discussion of "prestige" is better than edit warring about it. Even if the change is made, in can easily be undone in the future. This is why obtaining consensus is a better approach. Further, I think that describing MIT a "prestigious" is warranted, not just because that opinion is widely-held, but because the cited sources say so. Senator2029 “Talk” 04:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome Shadowssettle(talk) 10:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Mit ranks" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mit ranks. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shadowssettle(talk) 15:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Admition strategy for MIT.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are people with eunique skills and abilities in specific areas. Does MIT offer a chance to prodigies who have not completed their high school course or rather the secondary education. Mikolodel (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikolodel: You have asked a question which is not appropriate for this Wikipedia article. I suggest going to a Q&A website such as Quora.com, where this question has been asked, discussed, and answered multiple times. Reify-tech (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Julia programming language be on the list of discoveries and innovation

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I didn't wanted to edit this section prematurely myself and I decided to have a little chat about it before we go ahead and add that, to prevent any misunderstandings or false advertising regarding the ridiculous and foolish "who takes credit" war. But since Julia has Alan Edelman as a leading figure on its team, shouldn't Julia programming language be added to this list? Although it should be noted that Julia is a massive collaboration between people from many different universities from across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironnail (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cambridge Tool and Die" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cambridge Tool and Die. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Cambridge Tool and Die until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Mit german haus" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mit german haus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Mit german haus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Admition strategy for MIT.

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are people with eunique skills and abilities in specific areas. Does MIT offer a chance to prodigies who have not completed their high school course or rather the secondary education. Mikolodel (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikolodel: You have asked a question which is not appropriate for this Wikipedia article. I suggest going to a Q&A website such as Quora.com, where this question has been asked, discussed, and answered multiple times. Reify-tech (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Asked the right way, the question makes sense here, and some addition to the article could be needed. That would be true especially if MIT had a specific program for addressing such students. I don't know that is true, but could be discussed here until we know. Gah4 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Leo Marx

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Professor Leo Marx has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yulia's Dream

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This could be added somewhere in the article [1][2]. Super Ψ Dro 22:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ""Yulia's Dream" to support young, at-risk Ukrainian students of mathematics". MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  2. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/brain-gain-universities-worldwide-step-141500630.html

Neutrality concerns threatening GA status of Francis Amasa Walker

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Francis Amasa Walker § Work as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. I'd appreciate if someone could review the article for neutrality and remove the NPOV tag once the issues have been addressed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This fixation on rankings

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

According to WHOIS data (https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=18.29.1.178, https://whois.domaintools.com/18.29.1.178) for 18.29.1.178, that IP address is for Massachusetts Institute of Technology Room W92-167, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA. If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
BTW, https://officesdirectory.mit.edu/information-systems-and-technology says that that room is the office of Vice President for Information Systems & Technology Mark V Silis. Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Solomon. Anon, I understand, too, that for college administrators or media relations people it can be frightening to consider that Wikipedia summary articles are out of your control. Many of us who police these articles for vandalism also police them for bloviating, puffary, bad references and unsupported claims. Again, MIT is a well-known and highly-regarded school. I frankly don't care if you work there yet make the occasional edit, as long as your edits are factual, encyclopedic in style, and consistent in scope with peer organizations. Since many of these college and university articles tend toward bloat and tend to focus on ratings, rather than fight to rid the entire class of such articles of all but summary treatment, I would vote to allow some of it. But please, note your conflicts of interest, and limit each paragraph to a few high-value references, eh? Jax MN (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology/Archive_4&oldid=1229916832"