Talk:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Information Studies

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Rankings

Unless reliable sources for the ScienceWatch and/or Library and Information Science Research rankings along with reliable sources atesting to the ranking bodies notability can be provided quickly they will need to be removed. Codf1977 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ref for ScienceWatch, however there is nothing showing it is a notable body to provide rankings. Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not look prominet to you, but it does to people in this filed. Revws (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok can you provide some prof of that as per WP:V

I am removing the ScienceWatch ranking as it is not a refection of anything educational.

It is saying that between 2002 and 2006 the Researchers based at the School of Information Studies published 53 papers in journals indexed by Thomson Scientific which was 2.38% of the papers published by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in journals indexed by Thomson Scientific which is more as a percentage (not by number) than anyone else. It is not a good measure of productivity as it does not appear to take into account the type and weight of the papers. I can find no other ref's to this ranking and believe that it only treated as notable by the University. Codf1977 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why I have removed it - it is not about reliable sources it is based on the fact that the ScienceWatch ranking is not notable and it is not appropriate to use it. Codf1977 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about the article. Not every sentence within the article need to be notable. Besides, this ranking is notable. Google search results justify its notability. Revws (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, Codf1977, ScienceWatch is used as a reference in numerous WP articles: [1]. Bickering on this talk page or edit warring won't resolve this issue. How about if you take it to the talk page of WikiProject Universities and get it resolved there? 75.2.209.226 (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with ScienceWatch it is with the ScienceWatch rank which has at best a questionable significance and is only included because it ranks this school #1. I am happy to try EVERYTHING to resolve this, but the fundamental problem is that Revws is a POV editor only interested in portraying the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in the best possible light and has shown no wish to improve WP as a whole. Codf1977 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the ScienceWatch Rank

Let me make it clear what issue I have with the ScienceWatch rank.

Firstly I don't see anyone useing or quoting this rank and therefore don't see it as notable.

Secondly and more fundamentally it is being used as a measure of the school's research productivity, which it is not. The way it is calculated is by taking the number of Scientific papers published by the School and dividing it by the number published by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee as a whole. No account is taken about type and importance of the papers, nor is any account taken of size of either the school or the University it is part of. Without out any of this it could just as easily be just a reflection of the relative sizes of departments. This is not a rank of the educational effectiveness of this school in a true meaning of the word. Codf1977 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reason is hardly valid one. I can find several other examples of schools using the ScienceWatch rankings as a reputable source. Among these are Vanderbilt and UC-Santa Barbara. Please see [[2]] and [[3]].

Until you can prove that these papers were not refereed or peer-reviewed, your second argument is equally flawed. In most cases, faculty cannot simply submit research papers and have them published unless they are reviewed and judged by other faculty within the discipline. If you are making the claim that the school is being improperly assessed due to a sort of ballot-box stuffing approach, I would suggest that you back up your claim with evidence. Otherwise this is a very outlandish argument. Newcastle24743 (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are educational establishment press release and can not be said to be independent. I should have been clearer when I said know one else using it - know one other than Uni press releases.

It is not flawed and I am not making any claim about ballot-box stuffing - my point is, and I believe a very valid one, is that this rank is not a rank based on the "educational effectiveness of a given school" but more a ratio of how many papers a department has published with relation to its own University as a whole, in which no account is taken of the quality of the papers just quantity. Codf1977 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me who else would you expect to use it? If the rankings rank universities, how would you expect anyone else to use it? Also, how is not independent enough?

In regard to the quality of the papers issue, please reference your information. How do you know that these are not peer reviewed papers? It's important that you know whether these are peer-reviewed or not. The peer review is the gold standard for educational quality papers and if this is the way that Thomson Reuters (a widely respected information agency, by the way) is making the assessment, in my mind that would amount to an impressive feat. Provided that the university meets some standard minimum of overall peer-reviewed papers, the fact that the school has a significant percentage of overall publishing equates to a fact that should speak well of that program. Newcastle24743 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advert and Notability Tag

I Have tagged this article as advert like as ALL you get from it are the causes it runs and its rankings.

I have tagged this article for Notability as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines as nothing I read shows that this or any other "academic departments [in UWM] are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article". Codf1977 (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the guidelines carefully. It says that all universities and colleges are notable. In addition, sub-articles is ok when the contents of the subject gets long. The is no policy here says rankings are advertising. That's your POV. Revws (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No this is a constituent academic college and not a stand alone one. Codf1977 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-article for such case is allowed. Revws (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if "especially notable or significant" - that is my issue - I don't think it is - can you demonstrate it is ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this article shows its notability, which can be justified by Google search result. Besides, please be aware of the first sentce of the guidance, "When university pages become too large or too comprehensive it may be beneficial to break off certain sections into sub-pages." Revws (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not show it is notable (besides it says especially notable) and yes it may be beneficial to break off certain sections into sub-pages, but that does not overide the section on academic colleges. Codf1977 (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the example given in Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines of Michigan State University academics - which is exactly the same type of page you are trying to have deleted here. Codf1977 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This university is one of the major research universities in the US. Itself is notable as a whole. It doesn't need to rank on the top in UNWR to be notable. Besides, the notability of this school is justified by the reliable independent sources provided in this article. In addition, the guideline is only a guidance not a law.Revws (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- For the show case Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford in the guideline you provided. These two subarticles have their own Sub-sub articles for all their individual colleges and schools. There is nothing wrong for creating articles for these colleges and schools. As they are notable either individual or as a whole as a major research university in the US and special role in the education in Wiscosin. Your list article is not helpful to the readers, who are lost among a long list of schools when searching for the one they are interested. At last, guidelines are guidance or suggestions, not law. Revws (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept. The standard for notability you provided is not clear cut. Besides, significant sources have been provided in the article to show its notability. DJldhu (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]