Talk:University of Wollongong

Sexual assault allegations

This seems very much like undue weight. There is one report, which alleged that a single student was unhappy with the university's response to an alleged sexual assault. The university's actions seem typical for a university - tailor a safety plan, and presumably pass the issue on to the police. The university can't comment, as they can't comment on specific cases; legally they cannot investigate the claim, as it is a police matter; no one was charged; and only one other person's opinion of the actions are provided. While mishandling of sexual assault cases is an incredibly serious matter, we have nothing to show that this was mishandled, and it is a single case. Under those grounds, does it really warrant a full subsection? - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault on campus has been highlighted in Senate as "rampant" and Unis do nothing. UOW is perhaps the worst example. Do little approach is inversely pro-assault on campus. Nothing more to discuss as misogynistic bureaucratic thinking going on here. 49.195.91.77 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The worst example is a case where no one was charged, nothing has been proven, and the university acted according to policy in working with them to generate a safety plan? I think your concept of the "worst" is somewhat misplaced. - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The new material doesn't really help. That Wollongong has sexual assault figures and actions equivalent to other universities seems relatively uninteresting. However, I am concerned that this has now become significantly more biased in the presentation. I'll see if there are any valid objections before acting, but at best this needs to be reduced and better context provided. However people may feel about the university, this should not be justification for non-neutral content. - Bilby (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What did u permanently delete from this talk page here just now Bilby? You are already deep up to your neck in C.O.I. with this article. Bullying victims or editors is no way to get your agenda served. It's just abuse of privileges as a Wikipedia Administrator to twist topics that you have personal experiences with at work. Leave the article as is, it's perfectly reflective of the uni's stance on rape on campus, that's what the sources reflect. 1.129.96.2 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are employees of uni with direct involvement not blocked from changing this page on wikipedia? Why are questionable lecturers allowed to hide behind secret usernames and control the subject? As a sexual assault victim I am amazed! This university loves to cover up all that's not perfect, and sexual abuse is top of their list ot seems this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.146.85 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regardless of the content, allegations of COI and bullying are serious stuff, and I and my fellow admins will not hesitate to block for such personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no connection to the University of Wollongong and no COI in regard to this article. - Bilby (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Aren't you (on rhs of pic) paid to assist them in wikiediting on behalf of PR? As well as you being an on-campus sexual assault expert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.160.102 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not paid to edit on anyone's behalf, and as far as I am aware, I have had no contact with the University of Wollongong in any capacity. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but you do have an agenda, as one look at your user page will make immediately clear to anyone who takes the trouble. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD41:9606:D09:6E78 (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have taken the trouble and I cannot see any agenda on the talk page. Can you give sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC).

Rather than fight over this, it would be great if we could get some consensus. Can we agree to a few things? These are all based on the single source which mentions the case [1].

• The university did not move the alleged attacker to a different class when the allegations were raised
• Instead, the university worked with the alleged victim to develop a tailored safety plan, which involved the student changing his behavior to avoid the alleged attacker
• The student sought and won an Apprehended Violence Order, although we don't know if this was done with the assistance of the university or not
• As far as we know, no charges were laid by the police

The criticism of the university amounts to:

• The student should not have been expected to change his behaviour to avoid an alleged attacker
• The university should have moved the alleged attacker into a different class before the AVO was taken out
• The university should have taken disciplinary action after the AVO was granted

The response of the university:

• They cannot comment on individual cases, so we only get one side
• They are not empowered to investigate sexual assault cases, as these need to be handled by the police
• The tailored safety plan is part of a standard approach that the university provides to anyone with safety fears, and is not unusual
• When an AVO is provided, the university makes the necessary changes to timetabling and class allocations

Does any of this appear to be incorrect? - Bilby (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Employees from Australian uni's editing in favour of their colleagues at UoW, may want check their own social media policies before editing controversial topics (such as sexual abuse) and UoW on wikipeadia, and refer to expected behaviours on social media activities and the topic to ensure no policy breach. Please refer to your equity dept. For example UofSA has policies at http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/equity/default.asp --1.129.96.239 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd Student Satisfaction Rating Claim

In the fourth paragraph it states that in 2019 this place had the highest student satisfaction rating of any university of any kind in the whole of Australia, but only the second highest student satisfaction rating of any public university in the state of New South Wales. Since this isn't logically possible, should that perhaps be the other way round? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.249.141 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This is actually borderline possible. Wollongong belongs to that shady collection of entities that are not really universities properly speaking: polytechnics, community colleges, adult education, etc. Sitting at the intersection of a Venn diagram, it may have been rated in two different, but overlapping groups. I mean no disparagement of the "not really university" group of institutions; what is bad (like, really bad) is that we allow them to call themselves universities, award PhDs to anti-vaxxers, and so on. It is a move designed to look democratic on the surface whilst undermining public trust in science. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD41:9606:D09:6E78 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Innovation Campus at night.jpg

The picture appears to have been reversed/flipped. The image appears to have been taken from Squires Way. Google Street View from Squires Way has the same mountain (Mt Kiera), reversed. An innocent error to be dealt with, perhaps? 144.131.34.69 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been verified and actioned. See new file.

𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regional Campuses

I think it may be appropriate to move UOW's Loftus campus from the 'regional campuses' section. The suburb of Loftus is not technically classified as a 'regional' suburb, and is located in the South of Sydney, in a metropolitan area.

The main reason I wanted to bring this issue here is because if Loftus is moved out of the regional campuses section, where does it go? Thus, I think it may be appropriate to move Loftus to its own 'paragraph' section within the wider 'Campuses' section, as is modelled with how the Liverpool campus is displayed. I can see arguments against this change, however, as the Liverpool campus is larger in terms of student populace, and space I presume, therefore warranting it's own section.

Let me know any thoughts on this potential change! If there is a specific reason why Loftus was put in the regional campuses section then that's fine, just thought I'd raise the issue!

EDIT: I just looked over the section again, and it seems as if the Liverpool campus, too, is in this section? Liverpool is very much also not a regional suburb, and is also a metropolitan area. Again, just thought I'd raise the issue for discussion. DIYwriting (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)