Talk:Kwantlen Student Association

Re: Deletion

It was a mistake to merge this with the Kwantlen page. Both are separate, independent organizations. There are hundreds of other student union pages here on wikipedia, yet no move to merge those pages with the pages of their institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.232.172 (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

This is a new article started on August 15, 2007. I am basing the structure of this page on the structure of the Simon Fraser Student Society page as it is a good page. I also hope to examine the pages for other student unions in the near future, to help make this a solid resource and history of the KSA. I hope to put in at least 5 hours per week over the next month toward developing this page.

My background with the KSA: I have been involved in the KSA in a number of capacities since 2001. I was first a volunteer, and then a staff person holding the position of Events & Programs Coordinator. In 2003, I quit the staff position and in 2004 I ran for a seat on Council. I continued to hold that seat into 2005. I was then forced out of the KSA due to a number of questionable activities that went on in 2005 and 2006. I worked with other students to take the KSA to the Supreme Court of BC where a Court Ordered election was called for fall 2006 - I then ran for and won the position of Director of Finance, which I currently hold.

Currently, the KSA is working to compile an online archive of it's past activities. During the time in 2005-06 that I was on the outside of the KSA looking in, I developed a section on my own personal site with many documents and articles about the KSA. I have always tried to maintain objectivity and I have only ever made claims on my site that were based on facts and source documents.

A lot has happened over the last 25 years, and I hope to be able to provide information about that here. I hope others that have been involved in the KSA in the past will help provide information to make this a very informative article – one of many online resources that helps present the history of the KSA.

steveleenow 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal - Discussion with GreenJoe

Can you provide comment on why you felt the information on the constitution, mission statement as well as the past referendum regarding fees was not neutral? How can a history of what KSA fees have been be presented in a neutral manner? Other student association pages have information similar to what you have removed but no one else has removed them. Your thoughts would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.64.192 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't MySpace. I removed it because the information is blatant advertising. GreenJoe 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How was it blatent advertising? How is a history of the KSA fees advertising? It's presenting historical record of what has existed at the organization. The members pay fees. Perhaps you should check out the Kwantlen University College page, as it lists its fees - you should go remove it from there. Go to the many other student association pages on wikipedia and remove their mission statements, etc. as many have them posted. How is providing that information advertising? What is the purpose of wikipedia in your eyes if that kind of information that defines an organization is viewed by you as "advertising"? If the purpose of an organization cannot be stated, how can you present information on what the organization is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.64.192 (talk • contribs)

None of the other SA related articles have this information, because it's not relevant. --GreenJoe 05:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GreenJoe - thanks for helping me think and learn more about wikipedia. But I have to ask if you looked at some of the other pages... I will cite references here to be clear, and I will also state my thoughts on what some of the other pages have done - what I've seen as strengths and weaknesses. These are only some of the sites I've seen - I'm sure there are many others and I'm more than willing to go find them when I have more time...

You removed the mission statement and the constitution (I'm fine with constitution being removed) from the Kwantlen page, but:

• Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia and the Athabasca University Students' Union have their mission statements posted. Having the mission statement posted seems reasonable as it helps drive to the heart of why a student union exists (apart from their constitution). A mission statement is also less wordy than a constitution, easier to grasp. Many post secondary institutions wiki pages list them. So I don't see it as being irrelevant.

You also removed and gutted the fees / referenda section, but in regards to fees / referenda there are many sites with detail that varies from hardly nothing to very in-depth:

• Dalhousie Student Union lists the fees charged.
• Brock University Students' Union has a section for fees that is VERY SIMILAR to the section I started creating last night. I actually really like the Brock wiki page - it is very informative, I feel I learned a lot from their page and I know a lot more about who they are as an organization. There seems to be no standards for how a student union / association page should be setup but I see there are standards for say post secondary institutions. I see that there was a peer review of the Brock page and I've looked at the results of that tonight too. I see this review poses the question I'm asking here in my comments now - what information is appropriate for a students' union article, and what information is inappropriate for the article and should be removed?"
• University of Saskatchewan Students' Union has info on a U-PASS referenda that they held
• Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union has a bland, unspecific, one line fees section. I have noted I am new to this - so I'm learning. I believe in openness and transparency and want to put in time to ensure there is a strong history of the KSA available for people to read. The KSA just went through a very dark period in its history where it was completely closed off from the rest of the world and people were there for personal gain (hundreds of thousands of dollars were funnelled into shadow companies, etc. and they were always looking for ways to get more money from student fees). At some point, I want to highlight those controversies as well but of course, in a way that is neutral and not an ad or a soapbox. I can source everything I claim. So the fees are important. The histories of so many student unions are probably lost because of poor record keeping, etc. Wiki is one way of ensuring documented, sourced tales are not forgotten. It's a way to preserve information in a neutral, unbiased way. I'm a huge fan of Don Tapscott and his book The Naked Corporation.
• The Centennial College Student Association sucks and needs a lot of work but it has referenda & fee info listed
• Also Kwantlen University College lists all current student fees charged - is that not also advertising
• The Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia does have a history section. Could a history section be added as they have done - I actually wanted to add a year by year breakdown of key events - could the referenda that have been held fall under something like that? I'm hoping to go back and have a list of every change ever made.
• SFSS discusses referenda under their controversies section and they list actual referenda question. I've already made one very generalized statement on the KSA page - "Since the early 1980s the KSA has also been affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students. For a brief period of time in the late 1990s, the KSA was the only Student Association in Canada to have held membership within both the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations at the same time." and I have no backup references right now... this actually lead to a controversy for the KSA which resulted in a lawsuit and a referendum that was held in 1999 regarding the KSA's membership in the CFS. I hope to present that information at some point soon but again I don't want it to come across as soapboxing or advertising. It's information I feel that should be out there.

So to get back on track, I do not see how you can make the claim of "None of the other SA related articles have this information, because it's not relevant" as there seem to be a number of wikipages that have presented this info. And I have no doubt I could find many more. In regards to these wikipages I've found that many of the above wikipages for student unions provide very general information that could border on "Advertising." For example, the University of Manitoba Students' Union page states under the topic of "Political activities" the following: "The University of Manitoba attempted to institute $465 of additional fees for students for the 2005-2006 school year, which was eventually rolled back to $150 (along with an increase in Provincial funding), in part due to organization by student groups such as UMSU." There are no references or detail about how this was achieved. The statement reads very much like someone there blowing their own horn.

The information I had presented about past referenda had source documents (court documents, actual official results, links to appropriate rules, etc.) and I do not believe that I was SOAPBOXING or advertising anything. I was stating a simple set of facts about past referenda that had been held. Now, I will admit that the first two I had cited did have controversy surrounding them. So how do I present it more neutrally? Referenda before that was not controversial and it would be very easy to list that history. Perhaps in a table? Many students feel they are paying too much to student unions and that they are useless. So presenting a history of fees I think should be something that is a part of any wiki page for a student union. I love how McGill University has very in-depth information and there are many other Students' unions around the world, and most of the entries as I've noted are very basic, with little worthwhile information.

So again, how to go about it? Should I instead create a controversies section like the Simon Fraser Student Society for the two referenda I described? But then, how to list the non controversial ones?

I'm going to go out on a limb here - instead of deleting the information, can you help me find a way of presenting it in a way that does not offend and in a way that conforms to wiki standards? In a way that helps create a new standard for presenting the best information about student unions? Something that could help form a template or standard on wikipedia for how student union information is presented?

From reading the stuff that has happened with this article over the last few hours, I find that you are very good at criticizing, but offer little to no solutions that would help make the information usable based on what I've seen other student union and university / post secondary education wikipages offer. Many student union entries on Wikipedia are lacking greatly, and I do admit, I am new here and I'm learning the ropes. I'd love to make this KSA page a template for how strong a student union entry could be. So help me do this! And I'd ask that the help be more than just a simple one line answer - as I think that's taking too easy an out. I hope I'm not coming across as rude or anything negative - I honestly want to make this the best I can with the relevant information that is sourced and unbias. I also realize that there is some level of subjectivity when it comes to which topics that could be placed here under an article of this nature (BTW - I really HATE myspace).

steveleenow 08:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, we try not to compare articles between each other. See WP:WAX. However, I understand your desire to have a good article. Start off by reading how to write a great article. When you write the article, you want the reader to have an overall picture of the organization. If you can tell where the author's sympathies lie, then it's not neutral in language. So without going into the details of the constitution and missing statement, using words you want to paint a picture of how the SA runs, and what a student can expect when they deal with the SA. Inclusion of controversies are important, because it helps paint a rounded picture. Just make sure it's not too one-sided. Again, if you can tell where the author's sympathies lie, it's not neutral. See also Wikipedia:The perfect article. GreenJoe 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I appreciate the advice :) steveleenow 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

When one article is similar to other articles, and Wiki creates templates for those types of articles - how is that done, if "as a rule we try not to compare articles between each other"? Some kind of comparative must be involved if one is trying to improve something. Also, if this is the rule, then why didn't yous tate that earlier instead of stating the one liner "None of the other SA related articles have this information, because it's not relevant."? steveleenow 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the amount of information that GreenJoe has removed and is removing appalling. Both here and on other wikipedia articles the information that GreenJoe is removing from the main articles is far too great with out any sort of constructive criticisms. Just who are you GreenJoe, and what are your credentials that give you such a supreme knowledge over the KSA and other webpages? Both myself and Steve work for the KSA and face real questions from real people--both students and the general public alike--about the KSA, and the student movement everyday. Both Steve and I have a good grasp of what sort of information most people are looking for, and can also provide a fair bit of historical insight. What is the area of your expertise? And what gives you authority on and over the KSA article? What is your BIAS? Everything is biased, in as so far as to who you write the article for. If information inappropriately posted, and you remove it, please provide us with the constructive criticism as to why you're removing it. Our preference is work collaboratively, but if your intent is remove content wholesale through some very narrow interpretation of wikipedia standards guidelines that satisfies your bias, then we will pursue having your "write" privileges removed from this article. David 207.6.27.95 06:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you work for the KSA, you shouldn't be editing this article at all then. See WP:COI, and WP:AUTO. Who I am and what my qualifications are, is irrelevant. GreenJoe 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You could be involved in the KSA in some way and we have no way of knowing.steveleenow 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GreenJoe - In regards to the COI, we are well aware of the COI guideline which states “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.”

And we are not:

• Receiving Financial benefit (we have not been asked by anyone within the Society to create this page – I started this in my free time on my own accord and I will not seek fincancial compensation for the work I've done here. I know that there are other Kwantlen students who plan on contributing to this page as well, both past and present students / KSA members, but again they will be doing it on their own time);
• We are not “legal antagonists” as we are not personally involved with any legal proceedings between us or the association – any decisions regarding legal actions are made by the board of directors and are acted upon by other staff; and finally
• We are not here for self promotion, autobiography, campaigning or to write articles about ourselves as individuals. Nothing in the KSA article to date refers to anything about myself or David, aside from the short "Welcome" paragraph I posted on this discussions page.

If you are all for upholding the COI, then I suggest you visit the Kwantlen University College page, as there have been many posts by Kwantlen marketing department staff who have stated when they update a section – “Do not remove this information. If you have a problem with it, call my number” and they post a Kwantlen number. There was even one section where a Kwantlen official didn’t even bother editing text from the Kwantlen homepage about one topic in the Kwantlen section and it read like a Kwantlen press release.steveleenow 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That article has now been taken care of. GreenJoe 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In re-reading David's point on COI, I feel that Greenjoe has not properly addressed his or her own credentials - the same arguments Greenjoe poses against David and myself could be possibly used against Greenjoe as this user has edited and created a number of "Green Party" related articles on Wikipedia and from Greenjoe's website Greenjoe.net, it appears Greenjoe supports the Green Party of Canada. Unfortunately, Greenjoe has limited the amount of information avaiable online about his or her own status in the party for that judgement to be made (is Greenjoe a member? has Greenjoe voted in leadership races, etc.). I could have created an annonymous username and not stated my own background at Kwantlen, but did not. If I had created an annonymous username, then Greenjoe would not be able to judge. As such, I would encourage Greenjoe to do the same and fully disclose information about his or her background and any affiliations he or she may have so that users can judge whether or not Greenjoe's postings have been properly made. Otherwise, I do not see how this site can function properly in regards to who is in COI or not, especially within Wikipedia's stated guidelines that "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.” Further, I see wikipedia states that users should "Avoid short one-liners" when debating why information is deleted. Luckily this was done on April 17, 2007 at 15:15 and is appreciated.steveleenow 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Your questioning my affiliations isn't assuming good faith. It's also irrelevant to this article. I'm not adding POV material without references.

2. Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing.

3. Your own documents on your own website are self published, and therefor aren't acceptable for WP:CITE. Things such as by-laws and constitutions may be referenced from self-published sources, so long as the majority of the article isn't from those sources.

See my response under "fact check" where I note that items such as the financial statements were not something I wrote.steveleenow 02:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

5. WP:V. GreenJoe 00:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone once suggested a Wikipedia article should be as such: A person wanting information on your organization should be able to get it independently of Wikipedia. If they can't, then the stuff in the article is original research, and doesn't belong in the article, because Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is a secondary reference, not a primary reference point. GreenJoe 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point to remember, especially for the other student union sites I had cited above where there were no references cited.steveleenow 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Advice - In browsing some other pages, GreenJoe said this on the Brock Student Union WP entry, which I think is good advice for anyone editing this or any other page - "Think of the article this way... who are you, what do you want, why do you exist, when were you created, where are you located, and how do you function? Those are the basic questions that you want answered. We don't need to know about the campus pub, or how much a can of Pepsi is. It's not encyclopedic to mention who the current President is, or what they ate for lunch. We don't care about that. We do care if the President was impeached for buying that pizza with their corporate credit card. GreenJoe 03:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)" steveleenow 05:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. :) GreenJoe 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

POV check

I added the POV check tag to the article. This just requests that a neutral, 3rd party editor who's never worked on the article give it a read to see if it's neutral. GreenJoe 15:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is written more like a promotional brochure for the union. The first half needs citations all over and the "structure" section is written like it came directly out of a set of bylaws. SpigotMap 04:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fact check

You can't use your own website to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Citations need to come from neutral, third parties. GreenJoe 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The documents that were cited were copies original documents that were simply stored on my site. If you want, I can have them notorized. Who else do you think would actually host these documents? steveleenow 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if your tongue or hand came notarized, that just makes it original research. GreenJoe 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the statement "I don't care if your tongue or hand..." to be offensive and a personal attack to me. The documents posted are not original research. The financial statements are a primary source document produced by the auditing firm Tompkins, Wozny, Miller. I do not see how the documents in question are:

• it is relevant to their notability (how do the documents hosted on my site relate to my notability?);
• it is not contentious (the statements ;
• it is not unduly self-serving (there is nothing about the statements that relate directly to me);
• it does not involve claims about third parties (just the KSA - which the article is about);
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject (exactly);
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it (Tompkins, Wozny, Miller);steveleenow 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I just wrote this - I see Greenjoe has made more comments under point number 3 which address my concerns that I just stated.

2. I am unable to find or see how the links I had fail to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. In regards to neutrality, WP:NOV states: As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. It also states One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. Unless Greenjoe can point out otherwise, I find that all WP articles are silent on the issue of online hosts. How are original source documents hosted on my site or on the official society site in opposition to this article? Where does one expect to find articles for small organizations otherwise? Greenjoe or anyone else is welcome to come to the KSA to obtain copies of all past documents if Greenjoe wants to host them elsewhere. steveleenow 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember: If you can tell where the sympathies of the author lie, it's not neutral. As for the hosting of documents, see WP:V, and WP:CITE. GreenJoe 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

3. In doing further research on WP, I have found WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB which state ...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. But if Greenjoe would look a little closer, Greenjoe would find that the cited materials are not materials I wrote. I did not write the KSA Audited Financial Statements - an independent auditing firm wrote and produced them and their name was on the cover of that audit. From what I can tell WP is silent on the issue of who hosts copy of an original document. The copies of the constitution that were online were reproduced from original copies obtained from the BC Registrar of Societies. I can scan the original copies I received but have not done so yet. Eventually, it is my understanding that all of these documents will eventually be on the official KSA website under the society's belief in openness and transparency. But it appeared Greenjoe also removed links to documents on the society's website. I would hope others would mirror these documents on other sites so that they are widely available. The society has signed an agreement with its auditors wherein if any member has a question about the documents, they can contact the auditors directly. Many societies do not allow or provide for this. Until other sites mirror this information, which I believe is worth reporting (or I would not have placed the documents on my own site), what is one to do? Please find an answer to this for me Greenjoe, and "Avoid short one-liners" for a response.

It doesn't matter if you wrote them or not. We need to find these materials in another source. Such as a local newspaper, or Macleans. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, nor is it for things made up in school one day. GreenJoe 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please source where on wikipedia it states that "It doesn't matter if you wrote them or not." What kind of sources do you suggest???? Audited financial statements, bylaws and other primary documents are not something I made up in school one day. I did not write them and I really take offense to your statement. Again, please state how the copy of the audited statements or the copies of the bylaws and other documents violate the section you say it violates - "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Because right now I don't see how they fall under any of those categories. steveleenow 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Think of it in the big picture. I seriously doubt the average reader of the article really cares what the by-laws or the financial statements say. We try to keep exact numbers of fees out of the articles, because we want the article to have a timeless quality. This is an encyclopedia, and the putting in of exact figures means someone has to constantly go in and update them. This isn't a universal rule, some articles do talk about the gross budget of an organization sometimes, but in general, try to avoid getting into that kind of detail. That is best left for your own website, where your students can find it.

Thank you for this - this is a very helpful comment.steveleenow 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOT#INFO: Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. GreenJoe 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this - this is a very helpful comment.steveleenow 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also check out WP:RS. GreenJoe 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• From WP:SOAP: Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. GreenJoe 03:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "autobiographical articles"?steveleenow 03:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Greenjoe has made more comments under point number 3 which address my concerns that I stated above at 3:12. steveleenow 05:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Over 100,000 Google references. [1] --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:GNUM, WP:GHITS, and know that this was redirected per an AFD consensus. tedder (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent sources

One - misspent funds - Two - CFS-BC court battle vs Kwantlen - Three - Four - Five - Six - Seven - Eight - Nine --Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)