Jump to content

Talk:University of the People/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Tuition free

--80.56.118.202 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)I removed "tuition free" from the introduction, in effect the 4000 dollars exam fees are tuition. Claiming to be tuition free is simply a lie. Unfortunately this misleading claim is still in the motto.

I agree, "tuition free" is false. This online school uses a different business model (installments instead of annual tuition). In any case, it is not free: if you don't pay, they will stop you from taking exams. "Low cost" would be a better expression. --5.170.125.171 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, I am a student at UoPeople and it is tuition free.  The fact that they charge a fee for end of term exams does not change that and they are transparent about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.97.50 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The website is definitely "transparent" when it comes to paying fees — there is no question about it — which is why it asks you to pay right away. On the other hand, what is not "transparent" is the misleading "tuition-free" ad, simply because the sum of fees can be considered tuition. There are many more real "tuition-free" online schools, which ask you to pay no tuition and no fees. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Tuition is money given over for teaching, though students often (wrongly) regard it as total fees. I've tried to re-write the relevant graf in the intro to make a more neutral assessment of the fee structure. cshirky (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And who says that students are wrong? --Adrin10 (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed for years by now. Since there has never been consensus over the real purpose of the alleged "tuition-free structure", which some people consider misleading, the only neutral solution is to say that, according to University of the People, it is "tuition-free", and according to others it is not. Which is exactly what the article does now. --Adrin10 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that UoPeople is tuition free, but not totally fee free. There are fees required to receive credit for the classes, but no up front tuition costs. You can take the class without any tuition, but you will not receive credit for it. Most universities charge tuition just to allow the student into class.--Clvance7 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a student and the motto is correct. Do you want to say Tuition fee and Exam fee are same? The university clearly states that the university is a tuition-free university but BS students have to pay $100 per course. If you can't read and understand it's your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Note to editors; this dispute appears to have been resolved. Please see the Disputed Tuition-Free tag section of this talk page. --Sadsignal (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

The article seems to be attracting numerous COI editors. I'd advise any new users to please review Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and neutral point of view before editing this article. Thanks, SheepNotGoats (Talk) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC) University of the People - Providing Low Cost Online Degree Courses Worldwide

One of them seems to be User:Edudent, who keeps deleting the fact that the founder is from Israel (source: New York Times). For some reason, they want to hide this piece of information. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, after eight years, the COI spam goes on. --Adrin10 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It looks like they are still mistaking this article for a free billboard. Oh well--1.1.133.116 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Does it really make sense if you mention "Israeli entrepreneur?" Did you write your nationality before your admin ID? I believe the word should be removed. This doesn't add any value except the stereotyped view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the nationality seems out of context Weatherextremes (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think if anyone wants to find out the founder's nationality, they can visit the Shai Reshef article. --Sadsignal (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
   @Sadsignal, I agree that audience can find out from his personal page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Spam

University of the People a bogus fake university that claims to be free is notable because they spammed. Free Open University really is free but not notable because we do not spam cheat or lie. We Do Not Cheat Nor Tolerate those who do, neither should Wikipedia.

Quote from referenced article. Email advertising blanketed the edublogs community today (I got four) announcing the 'University of the People', purportedly the "the world's first tuition-free, internet-based academic institution." The New York Times, which also got the same press release, channels it uncritically into an article. The term "tuition-free" is just a nicety; students will still have to pay to register and take tests. The term "university" is also a misnomer; it still seeks accreditation. None of this means that the venture won't work. It's just you don't get to call yourself "first" until you've actually done what you say you've done.. Seb Schmoller, Fortnightly Mailing, January 26, 2009. [Link] [Tags: Assessment, Marketing, Academia, Tuition and Student Fees] Scottprovost (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation has been granted by now and it is by definition "tuition-free", i.e. you do not pay for tuition. However, I would agree for it to be misleading. Aronpi (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
They just use different words. You pay "exam fees" instead of "tuition", but you must pay anyway. If you don't pay you can't attend, plain and simple, so it's not free. All in all it's definitely low-cost, but definitely not free. A misleading, and probably unethical, ad. --5.170.125.214 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You can attend for free, in that you can enroll for the classes, and their own site makes the point that they are "Tuition-free but not free." I think the problem is between the narrow and wide sense of tuition -- the former is 'Fees to attend classes", it's original sense, and the latter is "Total fees", which is not true at almost any university or college, as they almost all have fees other than tuition. cshirky (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
If you can attend for free, why are you required to pay a "non-refundable entry fee"?!? --Adrin10 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The topic has been discussed for years by now. Since there has never been consensus over the real purpose of the alleged "tuition-free structure", which some people consider misleading, the only neutral solution is to say that, according to University of the People, it is "tuition-free", and according to others it is not. Which is exactly what the article does now. --Adrin10 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, after almost ten years, there are still too many COI editors who keep writing promotional and misleading information (not to say fake news!) mostly through sponsored articles which they claim to be "reliable sources". The "scholarships" that this school is supposed to be giving is another misleading piece of information. Actually, if you email them to apply for a scholarship, they will say that scholarships are not for bachelor or master students. It sounds fishy.--110.77.238.40 (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see lots of editors are shouting without knowing real information about the university. I'm a student of the university and I received four scholarships. Look at this: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fEz_GtFFRb8/WlKZZuM7gBI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/-O0la88olOUptDCCSO4lPGDD4RNNsBmhQCLcBGAs/s1600/Scholarship2.JPG

These are valid sources and there is no dispute on whether the scholarships are true or not. Maybe propaganda sites dispute it but this is not something of substance Weatherextremes (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Also in this source [1] there is a student who speaks about his scholarship from UoPeople among other things relating to UoPeople Weatherextremes (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

GAID

In the article is a statement saying that "The University of the People has received the backing of the United Nations’ Global Alliance for ICT and Development." I added a {{fact}} tag for this, since that's a huge claim.

Subsequently, various anonymous users and SPAs have been replacing the fact tag with a press release [2]. I have been reverting them because all it says is that GAID "announced" the launch of a new university: this is not the same as backing the university. All that can be inferred is that GAID is announcing it because it is relevant to their mission and goals or whatever, but again, as I see it, this does not mean they are supporting or "backing" the university. What we really need is details as to how GAID is actually "backing" the university: financially? politically? I checked the school's website and found nothing about GAID (other than a link to the same press release); if the UN were officially supporting the university, you'd think it would be mentioned there.

Anyway, maybe I've been dealing with the SPAs and PR people on this article for so long that I've gotten to the point where I'm biased, so I'd appreciate a second opinion on this from someone with fresh eyes. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the original contributors use the phrase "backing" because UN-GAID allowed the University of the People to announce their launch at a UN-GAID press conference? That does seem to be a supportive action, although I agree that Wikipedia entries should cite references verbatim and the word "backing" does seem non-neutral. I edited this section to site the UN News Centre source directly and took out the word "backing" for clarity. Edudent, 3 February 2011.
As one of the students of the University of the People, I've been looking for information in that respect (the support from UN GAID). I didn't try to make an in depth research, just wanted to check if it was true what I heard (and read in some news here in Spain). Maybe this discussion is already outdated, but just in case here's my small contribution, for whatever it may be worth! Here's what I found:
UN Press Conference on first ever tuition-free global online university, 19 May 2009
UN News Centre: UN announces launch of world’s first tuition-free, online university, 19 May 2009
This link is more specific to this section, and I used it to balance the neutrality of the entry. Edudent, 3 February 2011
GAID blog: Calling for Volunteers, 9 June 2009, by Shai Reshef
GAID blog: How do we get closer to students who need tuition free education?, 8 June 2009, by Shai Reshef, including the following sentence: "UoPeople, which has the backing of the United Nations' Global Alliance for Information and Communications Technology (GAID)..."
I don't know what this "backing" exactly consists of, but I think we can accept that there certainly is a backing from UN GAID. Do you think we can add this information to the article?
Enboifre, 15 October 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

There have of course been many similar attempts in the past (see Dr John Bear's Guides). If this venture is serious it should seek approval from US Distance Learning Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntsukunyane Mphanya (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In brief: this school has never been affiliated with the United Nations. The misleading piece of information has been removed.--Adrin10 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Accreditation

Patlo - I agree with your clarity edits regarding adding an accreditation heading to make it more clear. However, the wording which mentioned that the University is not accredited by US agencies could be misinterpreted for those who potentially do not understand accreditation and I felt it could imply that there could be another accreditation, in another country. To help with clarity, the statement "University of the People is not accredited." is very clear, I feel. Feel free to discuss. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edudent (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we know of any incidents in the US or abroad where their current lack of accreditation is detrimental or unhelpful for the student/graduate of this institution? I'm just curious. 216.119.235.66 (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not listed as a current applicant for DETC accreditation on the DETC website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.236.140 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't listed as a current applicant for DETC accreditation becuase it's still in the two-year qualifying period. They can't apply yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.73.158 (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC) UoPeople was accredited by DETC on January 2014. Use this website and the "Search Institutions" link to verify. https://www.deac.org/Seeking-Accreditation/Applications-and-Reports.aspx--Clvance7 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently reverted some edits that contained quite a few copyright violations. Many of these were restored with the claim that there is no copyright violation. This, however, is untrue, as just a cursory look at the content reintroduced found more text copied verbatim than not:

  • "University of the People established collaboration with New York University"[3]
  • "...key ingredient in the promotion of world peace and global economic development"[4]
  • "University of the People offers the following four undergraduate degrees..."[5]
  • "UoPeople committed to accepting 250 qualified Haitian youth to study free online, helping them access education and develop the skills needed to rebuild their country..."[6]
  • "June 2011 marked the beginning of a partnership with Hewlett-Packard (HP). Through the partnership, HP generously committed to the sponsorship and mentorship of women worldwide, established Virtual Research Internships, created access to HP Life E-Learning, provided computers for the learning center in Haiti and gave general support to help UoPeople achieve accreditation."[7]
  • President Reshef’s...briefings focused on online education, specifically how to use the Internet as a vehicle for spreading US higher education throughout the world."[8]

I'd go through and list all of them, but there is no question that the edit does indeed contain rampant copyright violations. Unless the edit can be reworded in Wikipedia's own words and given proper sourcing (constantly linking to press releases creates an WP:NPOV issue), the content has no place in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove everything, instead of only the words that in your opinion are copyrighted? Also, next time please use a template.Bianbum (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, copyrighted text must be removed immediately, a template is not necessary when the problems can be removed with a single edit, and there is no cause or reason to wait to remove it. Also, as there is more copyrighted text in that edit than non-copyrighted text; is is your job to fix the issues with your edit, not mine. - Aoidh (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all, they were not "my" edits. Anyway, you didn't answer my question: why did you remove everything? More than 80% of text was not "copyrighted".Bianbum (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, this is your edit. While you may not be the individual who originally inserted the content of that edit, when you reinsert it you are responsible for what you put into the article. As to why I removed the edit, I already answered that question as the text you inserted is overwhelmingly copyrighted text and had to be reverted per Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted material. If you want what little non-copyrighted text is there to be restored, you are welcome to go through and do that, while first making sure that it's in your own words and not copied from a copyrighted source, as most of it is. The safer bet would be to write the entire thing from scratch, as it would take longer to dig through the rampant copyright violations than it would be to rewrite all of it. Furthermore, it borders on the promotional and is mostly sourced to press releases, which is less than ideal and created a WP:NPOV issue of balance. However, by far the more pressing issue is that of the copyright. - Aoidh (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I restored the text without the words that in your opinion are copyrighted and without links to the institution's press releases and/or website.Bianbum (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"No, this is your edit" Well, for the record, it was actually 655944564 revision by Rolfo360.Bianbum (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Your name is on the edit and you personally reinserted the material; you are responsible for the contents. That is Wikipedia policy. Just because you reinserted something someone else did first is not an excuse. - Aoidh (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
And I've removed the text again, because the copyright issues are still there. The passages I quoted above were examples, not a definitive list. You need to rewrite all of it in your own words if you want to place the information in the article. Copy-pasting from copyrighted works and changing a few words around is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that's what you're inserting into the article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you keep reinserting it now claiming that my edits are vandalism, I've requested full-protection of the page to prevent the copyrighted text from being reinserted. Hitting "undo" will not keep the copyrighted text in the article, all it will do is prevent you from being able to edit the article at all. Please also see WP:NOTVAND to see what vandalism means on Wikipedia. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism." You are illegitimately blanking sections.Bianbum (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unambiguous copyrighted text is not "illegitimate", it is required. There is also a critical difference between removing potions of text with cause and blanking pages, which is what you quoted. If you believe my edits are vandalism, you are welcome to bring that question up with any administrator and get their opinion on the matter. - Aoidh (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And who said that it is "unambiguous copyrighted text"? You? Bianbum (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has tools that spell this out better than I can, so no, not me. Here are examples one, two, three, and four, that show unambiguous copyright violations that are in the article even after you say you removed the offending text. - Aoidh (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Curiously, your version has more copyrighted text!Bianbum (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

ROTFL, less than 1% of the article, including the "University of the People" phrase.Bianbum (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That was your version of the article, which has now been reverted and locked by an administrator for...you guessed it...copyright violations. You have to rewrite the text in your own words, as I said. You will be unable to edit the page for three days, which should give you plenty of time to do this. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
He hates this school and believe he owns the article. Crystal clear ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.199.60 (talk • contribs)
You are welcome to bring your concerns to an administrator if you believe there is an WP:OWN issue, but I suspect you won't because you know there no substance behind your claim. You'll find that I am not the one that full-protected the page, that was an administrator, and my issue is with the copyright violations, not the article's subject. It would give more weight to your comments if you didn't log out to make them, as most people are willing to stand behind their words if they believe they have any substance. - Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Jessie 154 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)I have read below in regards to conflict of interest. Yes I am close to the source, however everything I have added is based on facts, and has references. I am trying to update the Wikipedia page which up to date information about the University (new prizes, board members etc).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of the People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of the People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of the People. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Fake "headquarters"

The current introduction is misleading. "University of the People (UoPeople) is an American 501(c)(3) non-profit institution of higher education headquartered in Pasadena, California, United States." It implies that, if you go to Pasadena, you will find the school. False! The address in Pasadena is actually a room where mail is kept until collected, just like a PO box. The real headquarters, and all the administrative staff, are located in Israel. How do I know this? Because I was a student and I used to talk to them (Tel Aviv time zone). --5.170.125.171 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

UoPeople has a real office in Pasadena,California.This is the post I found recently on their fb [9]Weatherextremes (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not enough information to go by. We can confirm the use of a virtual office via the citation provided. They may have just been using a temporary conference room in the photo. But as it is all assumptions I think it should still just say "virtual office". Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not affiliated with the United Nations

The school claims to be affiliated with the United Nations. It is not true (fake news, and fake ads). The only source they can use is an outdated press release, printed in 2009 by Serge Kapto, saying this new school is going to be created. But it doesn't say it is affiliated with the United Nations! In fact, it has never been affiliated. Also, the article is misleading, because it seems to imply that the school was created by the United Nations. I am going to remove the misleading affiliations. --Adrin10 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I will also remove other fake affiliations:

  • clintonfoundation.org does not say that this school is affiliated with them, or vice versa;
  • ashoka.org does not say that this school is affiliated with them, or vice versa;
  • yale.edu does not say that this school is affiliated with them, or vice versa: this press release talks about a "research partnership" in 2009, but it does not mention any current official affiliations and it is unclear if the content of the press release is still valid;
  • nyu.edu does not say that this school is affiliated with them, or vice versa: this press release talks about a collaboration in Abu Dhabi in 2011, but it does not mention any current official affiliations and it is unclear if the content of the press release is still valid;
  • berkeley.edu does not say that this school is affiliated with them, or vice versa.

--Adrin10 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not delete again the references I provided.This is from the Times Higher Education a valid reference. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That (sponsored) article is not a "valid reference". The only valid source is the United Nations' website, which does not say this school is affiliated with them in any way. --Adrin10 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The school still claims to be affiliated with the UN and other important organizations etc.: this fake news was the basis for a fake list of affiliations in this Wikipedia article for more than five years. They can advertise their sponsored articles anywhere else, but not here: as WP:PROMO says, "Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." --Adrin10 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we are having a content dispute right there.I did not use the word affiliated.I wrote down what the THE source says.Please do not revert again unless you can find a source that claims otherwise. You can not just go deleting valid references because it doesn't appear valid to you.It is a valid third party reference and perfectly solid to be included. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This school has nothing to do with the United Nations, or any of it agencies. Your "source" is just an obsolete sponsored article, never confirmed by the United Nations or its agencies. Basically, advertising/PR at best, or fake news at worst. --Adrin10 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Among other things, that sponsored article also claims the school to be "headquartered" in Pasadena, California. Fake news. Look at Google Street View. --Adrin10 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

PO Box, affiliations, etc.

The previous version of this article made the claim that the University of the People's "campus" was located at the Pasadena mailing address, when indeed the official site makes it clear that the "campus", as it were, is the online Moodle-based LMS; the Pasadena address is primarily only for mailing admissions documents to, as far as I know. I also can't find any reliable sources documenting exactly what is at that address either -- it does appear to be some sort of "virtual office" but again, there's no available RS to cite to prove this. I've therefore corrected the infobox and removed the text sourced to a non-WP:RS opinion piece (which appears to be a primary source and doesn't source its content) making the claim regarding UoPeople having no offices as this isn't right either; there's certainly one in Israel for Student Services I believe, and another in Palestine that provides IT support, but I can't for the life of me find a reliable source documenting it. Would anyone have any suggestions on what should go here instead? (WP:COI declaration: I do have an affiliation to UoPeople, but am writing here as a WP editor and am not editing in that capacity and am neutral about what to write here for the purposes of this article.) Yours, --Tristessa (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The next thing I was going to mention also is the business regarding the affiliations: again as far as I know UoPeople has never claimed to be "affiliated", as such, to Yale nor to NYU, but both do have programs for admitting UoPeople graduates who meet certain requirements to their graduate degrees. I'll see if I can dig out some RS material for this. Yours, Tristessa (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

False: that is not a real "office of admission", "administrative office" or whatever. It is a "virtual office" — aka PO box — as publicly stated by the owner: https://www.davincivirtual.com/loc/us/california/pasadena-virtual-offices/facility-817
It is also false that the article never claimed the school to be affiliated with other institutions/organizations etc.: the list — which I removed after 5 years… — was very long, and the alleged affiliations were all fake. See my previous post up here. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
UoPeople’s headquarters are in Pasadena California, the university has employees working there, most of UoPeople’s academics are in the US and it is an approved accredited institution by the CA state. Both the accreditors body and the CA regulators visited the university offices in CA. דוד שי (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You're embarrassing yourself, do you realize that?!?--1.1.133.116 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
https://www.davincivirtual.com/loc/us/california/pasadena-virtual-offices/facility-817 --Adrin10 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think that such a huge building is needed for a P O box? דוד שי (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
As the source explains, the "huge building" does not belong to the school, plain and simple. --Adrin10 (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The building is big enough to house the P O box company and the offices of the UofPeople. Nothing is plain and simple in your claim that the university has no offices. דוד שי (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a great idea, I will rent a "virtual office" there for $99/month and the "huge building" will become my new university with headquarters etc. --Adrin10 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think people are fool. Everyone knows the meaning of virtual office. People know a virtual office is not a permanent property. The use it for an address. If you mention "virtual office" in the article who'll think the address is permanent and university property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You can read an NPR article that describes the "tiny office it rents in a downtown high rise in Pasadena, Calif" - a tiny office is not a campus, but is more than a PO Box. דוד שי (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The linked citation proves that this University does indeed use a Virtual Office, but isn't it a bit redundant to mention that in History Section, Campus Section, and Location? I would like to hear some opinions on this. I would motion that it should only be stated in the location and history section, and removed from Campus box. Also that photo from Facebook isn't enough proof to the contrary. The NPR quote isn't enough proof either as the virtual office in the citation states that it offers conference rooms. No proof the University utilizes P.O. box, see my revision comments. (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Partnerships

I have added a chapter about partnerships of UofPeople with other universities and companies. Each detail in this chapter has a reference, declared by the partner university or company. Adrin10 removed this chapter, saying this is "suspicious WP:PROMO". Well, it is not a promo, these are relevant facts, with good references, about partnerships of UofPeople. There is no reason to hide these partnerships. דוד שי (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Old spam… See the "It is not affiliated with the United Nations" section. --Adrin10 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely not a spam, and it very not neutral to call spam to information based on announcements by respectable institutions.
I read the section that you mentioned. Most of it is not about the information that I have added. It says nothing about the collaboration with Microsoft and HP that you removed. The information about these two partnerships and the three other partnerships that I described are based on declarations of each institute that are still in their web sites, you can't dismiss it by saying "it is unclear if the content of the press release is still valid" - my chapter says exactly when each partnership was declared. Please return my chapter. דוד שי (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Why not use your own website to promote them, instead of Wikipedia?--134.35.5.39 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a hostile remark, that reflects the hostile attitude of some editors of this article. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia. דוד שי (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this particular user has also deleted valid references from my edits and posts consistently in a hostile manner towards UoPeople or editors who try to improve the entry most of the times here Weatherextremes (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur, the user claiming spam has used the same behavior towards my contributions, that I have been backed through multiple credible sources. Sadsignal (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

UoPeople has a real office in Pasadena

This is from their fb post [10] from January 11 2018 Weatherextremes (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wrote a FB post where I say I have a real office at the White House. Actually, I own the White House. Now I will start spamming Wikipedia or preferably the Internet with my Facebook picture. Oh, and everybody must read my Facebook post: it's important and it deserves a specific Wikipedia article.--110.77.206.168 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem if you dont like the fb post then I will put this article as reference [11].Weatherextremes (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

To make it clear: University of the People operates on the Internet, so it doesn't need a real campus (it is strange that I have to explain this on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia without offices to its writers). However, it has a real small office in Pasadena, as you can read in the npr article ("tiny office it rents in a downtown high rise in Pasadena, Calif") and NY Times ("the only real estate is 500 square feet in a Pasadena, Calif., office park"). A small office is much less than a campus, but much more than a PO Box, and the Wikipedia article must deliver the correct information to its readers. דוד שי (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Added.--119.42.75.246 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, UoPeople doesnt really need a campus but negating the fact it has an office by deleting valid in text references is something that goes against wikipedia's principles. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says very clearly that, according to the school, the rented virtual office is the school's main office. Nobody is negating that.--110.77.227.193 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a virtual office but a real office.Like I said unless we reach a consensus with other editors please do not edit out again the source.The edits who emphasise that UoPeople does not have a phone, have only a virtual office etc are based on archived questionable sources.Weatherextremes

Okay, I'll ask the UoPeople administration to submit a clear proof whether they have a virtual office or tiny office. I've seen UoPeople mentioned virtual office in 2014. I'm not sure whether they've changed the contract with the owner. Please note that Facebook pictures don't verify the office belongs to the UoPeople. A valid source maybe a contract between UoPeople and the owner of that property.

(talk) 06:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Please do not edit unless we reach a mutual agreement on the content since this is a content dispute Weatherextremes (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting "disputed" and the other templates, then?--110.77.227.193 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Also please do not edit the infobox again. What the UoPeople IS NOT is not of importance and is irrelevant Weatherextremes (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is important, instead, because your vague definition of "accreditation" may be misleading, and your attempts to hide this information are useless. The reality is this school is nationally accredited but not regionally accredited, which is exactly what the article says.--159.192.240.25 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There really is no reason to "hide" that University of The People is nationally accredited. Mentioning that the University is not regionally accredited is redundant however. Stating that University of the People is Nationally Accredited already implies only Nationally. The only difference between the two types of accreditation is that Regionally Accredited institutions may not accept transfer credits for Nationally Accredited courses and degrees. No two is better than the one, at least not unless you work for a Regionally Accredited institution or wish to attend one. The real credibility for this University is that it is recognized by the United States Department of Education, not who may or may not accept transfer credits. This is common knowledge and I do not understand why you claim a "vague definition of 'accreditation'" towards Weatherextremes -- signed Sadsignal (talk)

Both national and regional accreditations are accreditation, isn't it? Both are legal and valid. People believe a regional accreditation is a gold standard and a national accreditation is a silver standard. Yes, maybe true if you consider choice and selective institutes. However, legally they are same. I think it's better to mention that the university is nationally accredited, not regionally. This gives clear picture to the audience.

And this is exactly what I have been trying to explain to this user. This persistence of adding redundant information on the infobox seems peculiar to say the least. I will edit this to reflect that it is nationally accredited which is more than enough in the infobox. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It does not mean anything. As per other wikipedia articles on universities the infobox is all about what a university is and not what it is not Weatherextremes (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong categories

As usual, a few COI editors have added some categories that have nothing to do with the school.

  • Virtual learning environments: if the school makes use of Moodle, it doesn't mean that the school is a "virtual learning environment". The VLE is Moodle, not who makes use of it.
  • Open university: it is unclear why this school, which does not belong to the open-university worldwide network and does not have the "open university" name, should be in the "Open university" category.
  • Educational website: the school's website has no free educational material for non-students. It is all about promoting the school itself. Therefore, it is not an "educational website" (otherwise any school in the world should also be included in the "educational website" category).

On the other hand, it is true that technically the school is non-profit (though not "tuition free" as claimed).--159.192.240.25 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, even the COI editors say that "the school has no campus due to its online nature". So, why has the school been included in the "Universities and colleges in Los Angeles County, California"? I will not delete the category, though it may be misleading.--159.192.240.25 (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Balanced version

I have made a series of changes to accurately reflect the most pertinent information on the University based on valid sources. As we have established UoPeople has a real office in Pasadena and it is an American university so this should not be edited again.

In the infobox: The numbers of students in all other wikipedia articles on universities are according to what the school says.I have left intact the national vs regional accreditation bit so as to be more accurate.The location must remain Pasadena alone since there is a real office.

The criticism bit needs to go as it is based on a propaganda website.I have also removed the tags from the structure section since everything is backed by valid sources.

Finally I have also added the credit transferal scheme in the history section as this is an important milestone in UoPeople's history.

Please do not revert again without good reason.This will be the last warning before I seek arbitration for the content dispute and the sock puppets of Adrin10.Weatherextremes (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERTISING --Adrin10 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure the office is real! Too bad it is not a school…

Thank you for visiting Davinci Virtual. At our virtual office locations in Corporate Business Center, 225 South Lake Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101 we have everything to meet your virtual business needs. Continue your telecommuting or home working and impress your clients with a virtual address at Corporate Business Center, 225 South Lake Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101. Find business centers, day offices, part-time offices, and other virtual meeting facilities all equipped with live receptionist services and professional lobby greeters at Corporate Business Center. Ask about call answering, a virtual assistant, or web chat services for your virtual office at this prime address when you make your reservation. We will make your experience at our executive virtual office suites as smooth and effortless as possible. Need more than a virtual address at Corporate Business Center, 225 South Lake Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101? If you want to have a face-to-face with your client, want to do some office sharing or desk sharing, Davinci offers to turn your virtual address at Corporate Business Center into an actual work space you may rent for your touchdown or mobile working needs. Reserving a collaboration space online is fast and easy!

— https://www.davincivirtual.com/loc/us/california/pasadena-virtual-offices/facility-817
--Adrin10 (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And here is the reference about the real office. It does not need to be a school but an merely an administrative office since UoPeople is an online school. [12].Weatherextremes (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also this source that Adrin10 gives says nothing about the UoPeople.It is a random ad source about the services offered by this business and there is nothing about the UoPeople.Weatherextremes (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It says nothing about your school simply because your address does not belong to your school, crystal clear.--Adrin10 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Then what's the purpose of "virtual address?" Is it illegal by law? Did UoPeople ever say that the address permanently belongs to UoPeople? If UoPeople states "virtual address" how can you say the statement is false?[user:rigan123] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not my school first of all and second of all the source is irrelevant as it says nothing on UoPeople Weatherextremes (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So what the owner says is irrelevant, and your (old) press release is relevant? :D --Adrin10 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal references towards me.First the fact that you say out of the blue that somehow this is my school and secondly that this is my old press release something that is not true for either case.No need for bad faith Weatherextremes (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fake "Microsoft" affiliation&scholarships

So, a new alleged COI-editor (who does not disclose his COI) has readded an old press release (2013), about the scholarships given by Microsoft. The news was true in 2013, but Microsoft is not giving these scholarships for University of the People anymore (nor is it true that the school is affiliated with Microsoft or vice versa). Bottom line: do you want to write this fake news again? To me that's fine, but I will add a template stating this false content is disputed. Also, as this Talk page shows, the same issue has been going on since 2009: I have nothing against COI-editors, they can definitely contribute, but why don't they write REAL and up-to-date information, instead of misleading old ads? --Adrin10 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What is saying is based on a propaganda site Weatherextremes (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

According to Microsoft, the scholarships were given in 2013. Microsoft ("propaganda site"?) does not say they are giving scholarships for University of the People NOW. Hoax/ads/fake news… --Adrin10 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Still it was an affiliation of the past and can be included with a relevant edit Weatherextremes (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, your paragraph (or the other COI-editor's, I don't remember) doesn't say "of the past". It blatantly claims that Microsoft is giving scholarships through a partnership with University of the People, which is FALSE. Had it said "there used to be some scholarships but they are not being paid anymore", it would have been true. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The information regarding Microsoft's 4Africa Scholarships to the University of the People has been included in their History and states that the Scholarships are currently unavailable. You can't call something a hoax or fake news if you do not like something. According to Microsoft themselves, these scholarships do, or at least used to, exist. --Sadsignal (talk)

LOL all your previous versions (I haven't checked the current one yet) never said "they are currently unavailable". Never. If you are now writing that these scholarships (together with the other expired "partnerships") are unavailable, well that's absolutely correct, in which case I will not keep the "disputed" template on your claims about scholarships. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not know what you are on about, this is the only scholarship I have added. The only reason I have paid so much attention to this page is because you keep deleting my work and I keep getting notifications. You are also quick to accuse others of COI spam, when it is you who keep reinstating a citation to a propaganda website against this school. For the record, I disagree with those who keep reinstating that "Partnerships" section; it is more than mildly convoluted, so that is one thing you and I can agree on. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find an issue with my newest addition. I will continue to add only the notable truths. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said a relevant edit could highlight that it was an affiliation of the past.Problem solved Weatherextremes (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

yes, "problem solved" because if you keep writing FAKE NEWS (your edits didn't say "it was an affiliation of the past", rotfl) I will add, or keep, a template on your claims. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to write in capital letters.It is like screaming on the net. For your information I have never edited a part regarding partnerships or affiliations.I merely stated how it can be resolved.Please refrain from making unfounded accusations. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I notice that despite letting you know that I am neither a student in UoPeople nor have I ever sourced a press release you continue to infer and insist in this section that I am a COI editor. This continues to show bad faith towards me or other editors Weatherextremes (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"How to pay for the exam fees" and "How to transfer credits to University of the People"

Is there a rational reason, apart from advertising a product, to add a paragraph and/or section explaining how to transfer credits to this online school (claiming this is a "milestone"!), and how/when to pay for the exam fees?!? The article already has dozens of links to the official website. If a person is interested in paying for this product, she can visit the official website: why copy the same promotional information here? --Adrin10 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Where else is someone supposed to gather the sources for when a new school gains the milestone of accepting transfer credits? I'm sure Harvard University's website would be considered a credible source for this kind of information, so why not this school? The information was added because it is part of the school's history. Building a history of facts is what an Encyclopedia is. Additionally, I do not see how adding the history of a school accepting transfer credits could be seen as advertisement, no where is the cost of transfers mentioned. The only thing mentioned is what kind they accept. To add, the cited video was used as a an additional date of reference for the article. --Sadsignal (talk)
What does Harvard have to do with "transferring credits to University of the People"?!? For the record, Harvard does not advertise its "credits" on a Wikipedia article. --Adrin10 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Harvard does not post it because Harvard has been around since 1636. This University accepting transfer credits is a milestone and marks a large change in operations.. I would say a change in operations is worth a mention. Sadsignal (talk)
Do you realize that Harvard has nothing to do with this article (rotfl) and this "change in operations" (how to transfer credits from other schools to University of the People) sounds like an ad? --Adrin10 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Source updated. Problem solved. Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I second what Sadsignal mentions.How else are we supposed to know about the credit transfers if not from the University's website? I do not see a promotional issue here especially given it is a new thing for the UoPeople. Also I have made some edits adding a reference to Sadsignal's edit regarding the office in Pasadena.Weatherextremes (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made two more edits leaving out the word virtual since the source provided states that UoPeople has a real office (despite it being tiny according to the source) Weatherextremes (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I would argue for the Davinci Virtual source to go all together since it states nothing on UoPeople.The source about the real (tiny) office is much better and clearly refers to UoPeople. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting point. I would find that even mentioning a virtual office is unnecessary as the school is solely online. No real need to mention how they get their mail, ya know? Thinking about it more I see your point; the NPR article does specifically state a University of the People office as a "tiny office it rents in a downtown high rise in Pasadena, Calif.", so I would first accept that source over an assumption. (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I have taken out the Davinci Virtual source and kept the NPR source Weatherextremes (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yale Law School Partnership

I did some digging and my research indicates that Yale has indeed partnered with UoPeople.Yale's archived website version confirms this here [13] Weatherextremes (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be researching some more because now I am intrigued.In the meantime I think it is fitting to add this partnership in the main article since we are talking about one of the Top US schools.If someone could help with making the relevant edit in the main article that would be great.Also this source has a lot of information that we can use for the main article regarding the University of the People since it is a very reliable source from one of the best Universities in the world. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, here you go,this is the link from the current live version of Yale's website [14].I had to go through a ton of reading before finding it but it is now confirmed from a very reliable source that Yale and UoPeople have indeed partnered for digital education research Weatherextremes (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Expired (2010): there are currently no partnerships with Yale (I phoned them), so please don't divulge fake news again. Also, this topic was already discussed here: there is no need to pretend to "go through a ton of reading". --Adrin10 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How Yale's website is fake news? Given the bad faith and unconstructive edits you have been doing I am not sure I can take your word about calling them.None the less this source remains to be seen how will be used in the main article.The live version of Yale's website still has it so as far as I am concerned it is still in force.The same appears in UoPeople's website.Finally I did not pretend about anything.I found the live version on my own. Weatherextremes (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Year: 2010. For the record, we are in 2018. --Adrin10 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You do know what an encyclopedia is for right? It's not just for current events, but an account of history. Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are live versions so as far as I am concerned the partnership is still in force.This is a very important source not to be used in the main article and I will be using it either way.I have not thought of the exact wording so far.Probably someone can help with that Weatherextremes (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is well sourced information of this partnership with Yale it should go in the history section. No fluff, just the facts. When, How, Why, and For what. I'd say Yale's website is credible. Sadsignal (talk)
I have added the information to the History section and included a sourced quote since it describes exactly why Yale was interested in creating such a project. Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be there,however what the Yale representative said of the project seems as fluff so I have removed it and kept only the fact of the partnership Weatherextremes (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of on the fence about that. Thank you for your revision, I agree. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that the Yale Partnership and Gates Foundation Grant should be in the same paragraph as they are 2 different topics and 2 very different years, regardless that they are small sentences. ---Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair I edited it to one paragraph so it would look better and more organised but if there is an objection about the sentences being together to form one paragraph then I guess this is not something improtant and I am OK with it.Weatherextremes (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

COI-editors removing templates at random

...should read this first: WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT. --Adrin10 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not a COI editor and I believe this is the third time I am mentioning this.Yet here we are, you continue to address me as such.The tags as discussed previously are irrelevant since everything is backed by sources Weatherextremes (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The templates had already been removed before you removed them again. --Adrin10 (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
and, if you are not a COI-editor, there is no need to argue, because the title of this section is not "Weatherextremes is a COI-editor". --Adrin10 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I had removed them and explained the reason why having discussed it in talk page Weatherextremes (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please respect this: WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT --Adrin10 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have.It is you who has shown multiple bad faith and aggresive edits and reverts without any discussion what so ever.Only after I reported you here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adrin10 reported by User:Weatherextremes (Result: ) have you started commenting again resorting to reverts without reaching consensus Weatherextremes (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been one of the main contributors in this talk page (see the stats) and started writing in this talk page a long time ago, which you don't remember because you were not here yet: there is no need to accuse people of "reverting without any discussion, aggressive edits, bad faith" yadda yadda. On the other hand, please respect WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT (and if you are not a COI-editor, please don't repeat what COI-editors did). --Adrin10 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The past week or so that I notice you actively your edits and reverts are aggresive without bothering to reach consensus.The fact that you edited in the past here many times does not say anything about the quality of your edits.Not to speak about your fixation on seeing everything as fake news.Your edits are consistently non collaborative and you seem unable to understand what consensus means. If you understood that when I first spoke of a content dispute we would not be here, instead you simply ignored me and reverted without even commenting.As you see it is not a matter of editing often but rather the quality of your edits which are one sided and fixated with strong negative bias towards UoPeople based on what seems random witch hunting Weatherextremes (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There are other sections in this talk page, which date back to 2009: the issues are still unsolved. Other editors gave up, while I am a "survivor". Incidentally, you have a strange concept of consensus: basically everyone should do what you say. --Adrin10 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatdly to discuss with me on a mutually accepted version.You did not do.Only you ignored me.I am sorry but the only way forward was to report you in hope that you will be basically forced to collaborate constructively.This did not happen unfortunately Weatherextremes (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After dozens of replies you complain that "I ignore you" (I am the only one who is responding to you, but honestly I'm getting tired so I may give up too as others did) and even threaten me to report me. Oh well. It doesn't mean that you should not respect WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT though. --Adrin10 (talk)

08:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I waited for a whole week (maybe even more) before I report you and I reported only after I had again and again and yet again tried to reason with you.But reasoning with you is a complicated task it seems. I would suggest that you read carefully first what I write and where I write it before attempting to revert.For example the tags must go.I have offered a new ref for the scholarships which again you ignored only to revert adding back the tag of suppossed dispute. Again in the structure ,the tag at the top of the page is more than enough and If you had paid attention to what I said (that I have discussed it and you did not even bother to respond) then we would not be here.Yet again you decided to rever ignoring me all together.This is not consensus.It is blatant edit warring stemming probably in your case from some sort of fixation around fake news or whatever. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Structure and organization section

This section is so confusing and sourced so badly it should go until such time as it can be made more understandable with correct sourcing and no puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unless the section can be properly sourced, I see no purpose for mentioning this information. Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Any proposals on how it should be sourced? Weatherextremes (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If the school's website is not enough, I would suggest any outside sources linking these notable people to the school? Not sure why people would doubt the school's claims though. Sadsignal (talk)

The best way to understand the structure of the university is to follow catalog. https://www.uopeople.edu/about/uopeople/essential-uopeople-documents/university-catalog/ Additionally, some links will assist you to verify the members of the president's council. Chancellor!Nicholas!Dirks: Page 3 at https://retirement.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/etjan2015.pdf University of Edinburgh Principal Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea: https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2017/partnership-opens-doors-for-students-from-adverse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tuition: "Students who cannot afford to pay may be eligible for scholarships."

As it is disputed with no additional sources outside of the University's website, I pose to remove this sentence until proper sources are available and to end the dispute. Any further opinions on this? Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not disputed by any serious source as far as I know.Here [15] is a relevant link of a student discussing about his UoPeople scholarship among other things around UoPeople.Weatherextremes (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, this student mentions getting more than 1 scholarship from the school. Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This link is a proof: http://uopeople-ebr.blogspot.com/2018/01/university-of-people-evidence-based.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section must go as it is indeed based on a propaganda website.Weatherextremes (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A hilariously written one, at that. lol Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Gee, these two SPAs even talk to themselves :-O oops, we are all a bunch of idiots, we can't see that. 110.77.172.96 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
No I am not a single-purpose accounts. No one online or otherwise has called the University of The People a "scam" except that propaganda website listed below. I was just having a laugh at that website. My connection with the subject is an interest of distance learning. This is not the only school I have contributed to. I have paid so much attention to the University of The People article recently because another user decided to start a Edit War on my (and other's) contributions. No worries though, he was reported. Thanks for your concern though. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
To add, "Guy" or JzG, I see multiple users talking about this page on your (talk) page. They state, "The Gates Foundation gives it class, but for all I know the grant might have been a one-off blunder." Why are you hanging out with people that obviously want to hide the truth. That "very negative review" those users mention (see the one below) is from a website that has never made another review, only one for this school and it is incredibly bias and twists information. That website was created solely to write that "propaganda" article. It is my desire to contribute to this page for the shear joy of providing truthful information. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're on a mission to bring WP:TRUTH. That usually ends up in a siteban, you know. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have provided wikipedia only verifiable information, backed up by credible sources. "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability." This is what I have done. You have no reason to warn me. --Sadsignal (talk)

I am a wikipedia editor the past 8 years and your assumptions about me are just irrelevant.Stick to the facts and refs I provided.Weatherextremes (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore this source that the criticism section is based is simply outrageous.Who ever wrote it has some serious issues with UoPeople or whatever.Off course I am open to have a criticism section based on some worthwhile sources and I will be the first to add them.Finally last night I asked page protection for the page due to influx of COI users Weatherextremes (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Here [16] is my request for page protection Weatherextremes (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People do have "issues" with dodgy schools that obfuscate accreditation status. People are funny that way. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
But no credible source has ever called this school "dodgy". What is your source? Your opinion? --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the sarcasm but give me a source of essence.This one source is simply unacceptable in my eyes.Look if you insist we can put it back in but the quality of the article in my opinion will go downhill.Weatherextremes (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That source is bias and unverifiable, the very opposite of what Wikipedia strives for. If it is used again, my opinion of all Wikipedia will do down. --Sadsignal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record ( because I do not like to be accused of something that I am not since you implied that I have some kind of vested interest or connection with the UoPeople ) I work with refugees and my only connection with the school is what one of the refugees I work with told me in real life about how important the school has been for her and that they awarded her a scholarship.It was a game changer for her and helped her immensly, so I started researching the subject and I became passionate about the vision of the school.I think more refugees should be aware that there is a school that can help them financially.Why haven't I mentioned this so far when we were talking about the scholarships? Because I knew that it was only my testimony and this is why I searched for sources to proove there are scholarships from this school.The point is that I know in real life of at least one person who has been helped by the school.I am only saying this because I really dislike someone making false statements about me.Anyhow give me a worthwhile source and I will create a new criticism section in a split second Weatherextremes (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda Warning

This website[1] which has been cited multiple times by only one user, is clearly a propaganda website intent to forge a smear campaign, for whatever reason, against this school. It should no longer be used as a citation for this article, it is not a credible source. --Sadsignal (talk)

So if websites don't have your opinion, they are "propaganda"? And propaganda for what? It is actually well documented. The real "propaganda" is what you are writing on this article. --Adrin10 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a blog of questionable quality and seems purely propaganda Weatherextremes (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If I need to submit valid source to publish any information you must submit a valid reference to prove the information is wrong before you remove. Isn't it? How can you simply remove without proving that the information was wrong? I found much authentic information was just removed because the admin didn't like. It's sad and ridiculous as well. For example, scholarship section was removed. How did you prove the university doesn't provide any scholarship? What evidence did you submit to prove the university scholarship program was a propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any "blogs". And you must not remove sections simply because you don't like them. This article is not a place where you can write your... "propaganda", using only your own sources (basically press releases and uopeople.edu). --Adrin10 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It is from an unknown source, no date, no author, a one-sided bias piece that is pushing an agenda, this is the one article ever written by this website, language is crass and not in-keeping with journalistic integrity, they cite no sources... shall I go on? This general consensus is that this "review" is bogus propaganda. Please stop citing it. --Sadsignal (talk)

References

  1. ^ "University of the people's forum: let's review UoPeople's accreditation". Retrieved 20 June 2017.

Primary sources

In the absence of recently blocked edit warriors, I have removed all the content with only primary sources. Please only add back content which has reliable independent sourcing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Credible sources for NYU Abu Dhabi partnership found

Here is the announcement from NYU about the partnership. (2011)

Here is an article where NYU President John Sexton talks about UoPeople and the partnership. He mentions 2 UoPeople graduates who have been admitted to NYU Abu Dhabi. (2014) I motion it should be included in the History page, these sources should end the above disputes. --Sadsignal (talk)

They are primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Primary sources are what we want, right? I'm not going to add anything unless I hear a consensus. --Sadsignal (talk)
Absolutely not. We require independent secondary sources, unconnected with either of the them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I found an independent source, The New York Times. It mentions one of the student's by name who has been accepted for "a full ride to N.Y.U. Abu Dhabi". How about that? --Sadsignal (talk)
Here is another from, The New York Times that mentions the N.Y.U. Abu Dhabi partnership, and also mentioned the Hewlett Packard internship program. (2011). Another from The Chronicle of Higher Education announcing the partnership and that the UoPeople students will face the same admissions program as any other student. (2011) --Sadsignal (talk)

My Apology

Hello, my name is Asaf Wolff and I’m a Senior Vice President at University of the People.

Contributing to Wikipedia, and combating malicious content, is all very new to us and to me personally. As an NGO, and as a university, attacks on our reputation are a major concern, and in our attempt to defend ourselves from these falsehoods I realize we violated Wikipedia's terms and indeed its culture.

I mistakenly thought that approaching our volunteers--not paid employees--to help edit the page was reasonable. I know now this was wrong and sincerely apologize for the mistake. I did not understand that, in our haste to do damage control, we were doing more harm than good. Our intent was only to remove the libelous content from the page; we were not seeking to self-promote.

It has now been explained to me that we were engaging in canvassing and that we had a conflict of interest. I also understand that our volunteers inappropriately cited primary sources rather than secondary ones. I am sorry for the mistakes made in our reaction, and am very grateful to Susan Gerbic for her stern criticism --we are better for it!

I now put myself at your mercy, and humbly request your help and guidance in setting the page straight. I am happy to provide secondary sources in support of all of the information that requires correction, and to answer any questions you may have for us. I assure you, from here, no one with a conflict of interest will attempt to edit the page. I am confident that the editors of Wikipedia will handle any future vandalism of the page and we will not find ourselves again in this situation.

I want to thank you so much for your understanding and your assistance, and I want to again apologize for our errors.

Sincerely, Asaf Wolff

Your apology is appreciated. All users affiliated with your company directly must disclose their COI before they can contribute to editing. It would also be appreciated if you could have those users disclose their COI who have edited for you in the past in the COI section above on this talk page. Thank you for understanding. --Sadsignal (talk)

Thanks Sadsignal, I actually don't know what their users are:( there were only a few (2-3) over the last three months. Thank you for your understanding!

Thank you for your reply Mr. Wolff.Is there any way to confirm the existence of scholarships in your school from secondary sources?I have provided one link and also I know a student from your school who has a scholarship but we would appreciate if there are any other sources Weatherextremes (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure! Here are some articles mentioning scholarships and that UoPeople is tuition-free:

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/features/tuition-free-online-university-gives-students-a-second-chance/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-its-like-being-a-college-student-in-aleppo_us_595669c6e4b05c37bb7de6aa https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-30-in-time-of-uncertainty-for-undocumented-students-one-free-online-university-sees-surge http://www.mizzima.com/news-domestic/american-online-university-offer-tuition-free-degrees-myanmar-refugees https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/03/03/a-conversation-with-the-president-of-worlds-first-non-pro%EF%AC%81t-tuition-free-accredited-online-university/#6a54a6e95c7d https://thepienews.com/news/1m-for-syrian-refugee-scholarships-at-uopeople/ https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/online-university-offers-poor-a-chance/3088042.html https://www.ft.com/content/fcae44d8-7e54-11e5-98fb-5a6d4728f74e https://www.ft.com/content/5d49413c-8787-11e4-8c91-00144feabdc0 https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/no-visa-no-money-get-a-us-degree-without-paying-much-789288 https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/10/the-higher-education-crisis-beneath-a-civil-war/504947/ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/24/tuition-free-online-university-sees-newfound-growth-and-attention http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/higher_ed_lower_costs http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2013/08/microsoft-launches-african-scholarship-programme/


Let me know if you need any secondary resources for any other point. Thanks, Asaf

It would also be a good idea to avoid using words like "libel" quite so freely. Please read Wikipedia's policy page at Wikipedia:No legal threats. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Through a friend of a friend who knew I edit Wikipedia, I was asked about this page. I know no one involved, and normally do not edit pages for Universities. After reading everything through I am the one that told Asaf to back off. And he took my advice. This has been an interesting experiment, I see no one has edited the WP page since Theroadislong did so on January 23. So now this page sits on my watchlist, with my New Years resolution to keep my watchlist very small, and edit the pages I have added and then remove them. The changes to this page have not happened and I feel the need to see if we can make the changes necessary to remove the tags. Anyone around today to help?Sgerbic (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a student of the university and I received four scholarships. I know about the university and I've enough evidence. It's sad to see negative bias against the university. Look at this: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fEz_GtFFRb8/WlKZZuM7gBI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/-O0la88olOUptDCCSO4lPGDD4RNNsBmhQCLcBGAs/s1600/Scholarship2.JPG Tell me what exact proof do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Page improvements

There are three flags on this page. Primary sources, promotional wording and neutrality. Looks like the primary sources has been addressed on talk, and inline citations removed. What we are left with today are 16 citations, and it looks like Theroadislong has already gone through each of these. We have Forbes, NYT, Inc, The Guardian, NPR, Gates Foundation, Microsoft as strong secondary sources. That should be plenty to remove the primary tag. The promotional problem in the history section I believe was cleaned up by Theroadislong back on Jan 23, and as I read through it, I think everything is removed, but welcome better eyes than I have. The last tag/flag is neutrality. I have little experience with tution-free claims. But it seems that it is either free or it is not, what do the secondary sources say? I propose to give a good read through them now and hope for some discussion. At the moment I think the top two tags can be removed, and plan to do so today if no one has an issue with that.Sgerbic (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I thought that you may be interested to know that back in 2013, when we were originally accredited, there was a discussion with our accreditors (DEAC) who said that we are not free, and therefore, cannot say that we are tuition-free. As a result, we submitted a legal opinion by Dorsey & Whitney , explaining why “tuition-free” is different than free.

I can send an attachment (not our letter, hence I assume it can be called a secondary resource). I will check if it also exists online so I could share here a URL.

Needless to say, that the DEAC discussed and agreed with us, and we are a tuition-free accredited university since. Mawolf747 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Mawolf747

Yes I think that would be great and could be really useful if you could provide us with this.On a different note today the Olympian Simone Biles has spoken about becoming a student at the UoPeople, getting a scholarship fund in her name and having her fees waived.She started studying for her bachelor's in Business Administration at the University of the People.Here are the secondary sources [17] [18] Weatherextremes (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So we do have one more good source for the existence of scholarships and the disputed tag in the scholarship bit needs to go Weatherextremes (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

University of Edinburg Partnership

One more good secondary source coming from the University of Edinburg site which has partnered with UoPeople [19] [20] to help mainly refugees.

This is also a very reliable source that should go into the main article Weatherextremes (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The partnership is about the Bachelor of Health Science refugee students who currently study with the UoPeople Weatherextremes (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Also this source can be used for the number of students UoPeople currently has since it mentions it has more that 10.000 students Weatherextremes (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It says, "Students worldwide, who have completed UoPeople undergraduate programmes, may also be able to enter Edinburgh postgraduate programmes via online distance learning." https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2017/partnership-opens-doors-for-students-from-adverse

So, the real information needs to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok I ve edited the relevant bit to reflect the information above Weatherextremes (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Motto change

As of the 31st of January 2018 according to the UoPeople site their motto has changed to The Education Revolution Weatherextremes (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you post the link to the primary source here in this talk page, if you don't mind. :) Sadsignal (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes you can see the change reflected on their logo in every page of their website [21]

Could a more experienced editor in commons help with replacing the old logo [22] with the new found in the UoPeople website? I tried but for some reason it didn't go through Weatherextremes (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see that now. An interesting change in motto. Wish I could help you with replacing the logo but I am not very experienced with the commons. Sadsignal (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see that it has already been contributed. Great :) Sadsignal (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Simone Biles is a Uopeople student & Global Ambassador" & "Simone Biles Scholarship"

I believe that this information needs to be added to the article, and I would appreciate some help.

Primary Sources:

UoPeople YouTube video about "The Simone Biles Legacy Scholarship Fund". There are multiple others from the primary source.

Secondary Sources:

USA Today interviews Simone on being a student at UoPeople and mentions she received a scholarship. It also talks about her starting her scholarship fund.

CNN writes that Simone is taking the Education Strategies course at UoPeople.

People magazine discusses that Simone is studying Business at UoPeople. Simone also describes why she chose the school.

I believe that this information should also bring attention to the scholarship dispute. Thanks. Sadsignal (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wish I had the time to help you, but working on five other things at the moment, but this page is still on my Watchlist and would love to see it completed correctly. I'll stop back by soon.Sgerbic (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think this should be included in the main article as there are plenty of secondary high quality sources to back it up Weatherextremes (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok I ve added the Today source here [23] as this one mentions both her being a spokeswoman and the scholarship Weatherextremes (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputed Scholarship tag

Since we now have plenty of secondary quality sources (the best being from Today.com) I propose for the disputed tag to go and adding the today.com source in the relevant bit Weatherextremes (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple secondary sources state they exist, via the citations used. I can't find any secondary sources to either state or imply otherwise. Sadsignal (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

ok i ve removed the tag and added the today.com source Weatherextremes (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputed Tuition-Free tag

Merriam-Webster defines tuition as "the price of or payment for instruction". UoPeople fees are not for instruction (aka Tuition), they are for the assessments of final exams (aka Non-Tuition Costs).

This Forbes article describes the difference between "Tuition Free" vs. "Free" using the State University of New York (SUNY) model. SUNY provides free tuition to residents whose families earn less than $125,000 per year to any of New York's state universities. SUNY is "Tuition-Free" for these students, but they have to pay "Non-Tuition Costs" i.e. Room and Board, Fees, Books & Supplies. This example is indeed, "tuition-free" but not "free". SUNY's model is the same as UoPeople's model, except UoPeople's Tuition-Free education is offered to all students regardless of income. This shows that University of the People is tuition-free, but there are non-tuition costs.

This article on the costs of United States Universities clearly state that tuition and fees are separate, but they make up a total cost. UoPeople has fees, but does not charge tuition. This is the definition of tuition-free.

I believe that the prior dispute was built off a misunderstanding of what Tuition actually is, and the difference between "Tuition" and "Non-Tuition Costs" that are customary in the United States. I hope that this information can bring about a discussion in reference to the disputed tag. I pose that the tag should be removed. Thank you. Sadsignal (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that the first sentence be changed to, "University of the People is tuition-free, but there are some non-tuition costs." Sadsignal (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What about... University of the People is tuition-free however exam fees apply. Or something along these lines.More concert that is. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds great, but I think we should use "fees" instead of "exam fees", since the students have to pay for application fees as well. How about...
"University of the People is tuition-free, but there are some administrative costs that students must pay." or,
"University of the People is tuition-free, but there are some fees that students must pay." or simply,
"University of the People is tuition-free, but there are some fees." --Sadsignal (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok I ve edited the content to more accurate representation and also removed the tags Weatherextremes (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that tuition fees, exam fee, and administrative fees are different. The truth is UoPeople has only two types of costs 1) Application fee and 2) Exam fees. There are no other costs. If you write administrative fee that'll give a wrong picture. It's good to write the truth that every BS student needs to $100 for exam fee, and every MBA student needs to pay $200 for his/her exam fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you; I added description of what the administrated fees are for clarity, as per the citations. However, I do not agree that specific prices should be listed in the article since that could be percieved as advertising. --Sadsignal (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I agree mentioning specific amount/price may not be a good way. However, we should mention that exam fee is very low and nominal, which is true. I don't find any university has lower expense than UoPeople even the statement is true for many developing countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

it needs to be backed up by sources.A source that explicitly mentions that these fees are low Weatherextremes (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rigan123, Weatherextremes is correct. A credible secondary source would need to specifically state this. Although, I do not see why an encyclopedia article would need to state "this school charges fees but the fees are low"; most University articles on Wikipedia do not state whether costs are low or high. Anyone reading the article who is interested in how much fees cost can visit the primary source, the school's website. --Sadsignal (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is no reason to add this in the main article.It sounds like promotional content.I think the article is very good , simple and concise as it is right now.We only need to change the logo picture with the new motto and its all done.Weatherextremes (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that mentioning low cost would look some kind of promotional ad. As it's already written tuition-free university, it reflects the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigan123 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the sponsored articles (or press releases from UoPeople) which claim that Simone Biles left UCLA to join University of the People — strange but possible — her official website and biography do not confirm that. Why? --37.160.0.173 (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have been watching all the videos produced by University of the People featuring Simone Biles, and she never states that she is studying with UoPeople, nor does she state that she is giving scholarships! The videos are basically ads/commercials featuring Biles (we will never know if she has been paid…), which looks like a typical advertising campaign. --37.160.0.173 (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The article from the Today source [24] features the video where she states a) that she is a student at the University and b) that she set up the scholarship Weatherextremes (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's strange that her official website does not confirm this, but I will take this "Today" source as valid. --37.160.55.58 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

I am deleting the criticism section as a newer article from South Africa says that an unrelated college to the original UoPeople has tried to fake its name [25]. There was appartently some confusion and the article was ammended to provide clarity.Weatherextremes (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is not fake and Shai Reshef was also interviewed (reasserting DEAC accreditation). South Africa does not recognize University of the People and/or DEAC; source: department of education. There is no confusion: the other bogus university you are referring to was called UoP (and not UoPeople). I also added an official statement from the government of South Africa in PDF. --37.160.55.58 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the statement from SA [26] Which confirms exactly what I posted initially.It mentions that another fake college tried to use the UoPeople name to recruit students.It does not say that the original UoPeople is fake. So the critism bit needs to go Weatherextremes (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not revert again until we reach an agreement on the exact language to be used on that section. SA has never said that the original UoPeople is a fake college. Weatherextremes (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

From the government of South Africa: http://www.dhet.gov.za/SiteAssets/Media/Statements/2017/170920%20UoPeople%20Update%20revised.pdf
Please note the difference between UoP and UoPeople. However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country.
Very straightforward: UoPeople has no authority to operate in South Africa. Goodbye. --37.160.100.60 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, it is not since you claim it is fraudulent. SA never said it is fraudulent. So the content needs to be changed accordingly.Weatherextremes (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't read the title of the official document from the government of South Africa: DHET WARNING ON CLONED AND FRAUDULENT ONLINE UNIVERSITIES. If you don't agree with the word fraudulent, you should protest against the department of education of South Africa, not against me. --37.160.6.244 (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have edited as per the provided source. As for the second source on regional accreditation, it is complete junk source from a blog which we have discussed in the past and we had agreed with fellow editors not to include itWeatherextremes (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't read the official document. The title is: WARNING, not "information". Why did you change it? Also, the document explains the reasons:
The Department wishes to reiterate that no online university or private higher institution resembling either of the two names are registered or accredited - as required by law
Do not delete it again. --37.160.6.244 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
As for the second source on regional accreditation, it is complete junk source from a blog which we have discussed in the past and we had agreed with fellow editors not to include it.
That's not true. I have reread the whole page and I don't see any "agreement" not to include it. Curiously, you used that source yourself multiple times. --37.160.6.244 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all the document does not say the University is fraudulent. This is your arbitrary reasoning on problematic research which I responded with the newer article. Calling UoPeople fraudulent will simply not fly. Secondly, yes the consensus between the editors is that the above source is junk based on a blog by someone who probably takes issue with UoPeople.Weatherextremes (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not true: no editors talked about that blog, and you used it yourself to write the article until today (it was already quoted three times). --37.160.76.109 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


So I have improved content keeping the verb warned and deleting arbitrary statements. Also with my sentence I make it clear that this applies only to South Africa. The other 2 sources were deleted as a) the first one is again from a blog b) the second source is completely irrelevant to UoPeople. Please do not change unless there is consensus on the content dispute Weatherextremes (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

well, by "have improved" you mean that you deleted the Criticism section, lol. --37.160.76.109 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
the second source is completely irrelevant to UoPeople
Again, that's not true. The document is produced by the US department of education, and explains their official statistics about national-accredited schools (including UoPeople). By saying that it's "completely irrelevant to UoPeople", you are implicitly suggesting that UoPeople is not American and has nothing to with the US department of education. --37.160.76.109 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Also I have added the newer article as source that clarifies the mix up between the fake and the real UoPeople Weatherextremes (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The official statement from the government of South Africa is more important than "an article", simply because it is official. And the title is clear: DHET WARNING ON CLONED AND FRAUDULENT ONLINE UNIVERSITIES, explaining that both UoP and UoPeople (which is the one you consider "real UoPeople") are considered fraudulent. --37.160.76.109 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Your edits are not neutral and you are attempting to insult the organization by writing in a POV tone. Lorstaking (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree, this particular user is not editing in good faith. I will revert to my version and if they continue edit warring I will report the issue. Weatherextremes (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Also here is what the government of South Africa is saying about the real UoPeople 

Meanwhile the Department has been in contact with the authentic University of the
People (UoPeople) and has determined that the institution is duly registered and
accredited by the relevant US authorities.

So calling it fraudulent is something this editor simply made up or even worse they did not even bother to read the statement they quotedWeatherextremes (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, as the official document says:
However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country.
DEAC accreditation is invalid in South Africa. So, even though the Education department was told that UoPeople was DEAC accredited, it is still considered unauthorized (just like UoP, also mentioned in the official document). --37.160.78.28 (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes the language is excessively non-neutral. I would consider reporting on WP:ANEW or WP:RFPP. Lorstaking (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The language is identical to the official document written by the government of South Africa. --37.160.78.28 (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not identical, the above document does not call UoPeople fraudulent. This is how you interpret it using a non-neutral language in POV tone. The document merely suggests that UoPeople is not licenced in South Africa and South Africa only adding that it is however licenced in the US. By reverting repeatedly you are vandalizing the article Weatherextremes (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an official document: it's not "vandalizing". That fact that you don't agree with that document is another story. The title is clear: DHET WARNING ON CLONED AND FRAUDULENT ONLINE UNIVERSITIES (and universities is a plural word — two universities — not singular). --37.162.1.39 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted to the more balanced version and I have given a fair warning that I will report this editor Weatherextremes (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you have deleted another sourced statement, with official statistics from the US department of education.--37.162.1.39 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the document does not say that UoPeople is fraudulent. The title does not say UoPeople is fraudulent it is a generic title .You need to find a credible source that calls it fraudulent. The article says that UoPeople is not licenced in SA. You have deleted the newest article that explains the problem with the fake uopeople and you are deliberately twisting the content of the document with persistent, POV , non-neutral, unconstructive and bad faith edits. I propose the earlier more balanced version. Like I said calling it fraudulent is not going to work unless you find a verbatim credible source. If not then it is merely POV Weatherextremes (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just read the PDF source. It says that there is a fake university in Johannesburg (UoP), not this University (UoPeople). It does however say that, " due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country." This quote is important information. Could someone fix accordingly? Sadsignal (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This information has nothing to do with UoPeople so it shouldn't be in the article: 

"Last week the Department intercepted marketing material seeking to promote the launch of a fake online American University in Johannesburg called the University of the People or UoP. Further investigations revealed that the name and a somewhat altered acronym belong to an unrelated and legitimate institution." (UoPeople being the legitimate institution)

This information concerns UoPeople so it can be in the article: 

"However, due to the fact that UoPeople has no legal or physical presence in the form of operation sites in South Africa, the university is still considered unlicensed to operate in this country."
A statement like, "In September 2017, the South Africa Education department stated that UoPeople is not a recognized institution in South Africa and does not have the authority to enroll students or grant degrees in the country," would suffice.
As for the blogcritics.org source, its not really necessary to put the differences in accreditation on every Nationally Accredited school, they are equal in the eyes of the US Department of Education and this has already been debated countless times. Perhaps we could add a 'See also' link to Regional accreditation vs. national accreditation instead, if it pleases everyone. --Sadsignal (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that version Sadsignal.This was pretty much the version I proposed also but unfortunatelly the page got protection a few minutes after the reverts of that user and will look like that until the end of the week. I messaged the editor who protected the page and ask if he could help for the article to have the balanced version but still no answer Weatherextremes (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I left a message for Guy on his talk page. Hopefully he can make the changes or lift protection. --Sadsignal (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreement of two editors with a long-standing commitment to buffing up this article does not constitute "consensus". Try an RfC to gain wider input. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
My edit suggestions are based on quotes in the source. What is currently in the article is not in the source. With respect, how is wanting to put information in an article that is provided by the source, and subsequently removing information not provided by a source considered "buffing up this article." I will work on a RfC per your request, though I find your assumption on me misguided. --Sadsignal (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Agreement of two editors with a history of boosting this subject is not consensus. Consider an RfC. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

From the media warning, it's clear that: 1. Did DHET declare UoPeople a fraudulent university? Yes, they issued a warning before, published on their website. 2. Did they issue another press release? Yes, after UoPeople authority contacting to the DHET and submitting some pieces of evidence, they realized UoPeople is the authentic university, at least in the USA, this doesn't mean worldwide. 3. What's the confusion? There's another university in South Africa called UoP (University of the People) was launched based in South Africa, which was unlicensed. The original university is based in the USA, called UoPeople(University of the People), but not UoP. 4. Can UoPeople operate in South Africa? Physically: No; Online: Yes. 5. Will some South African universities accept UoPeople degree? Some YES and some other NO (Complete discretion to the university).

We should understand that there's a clear warning that UoPeople can't physically operate in South Africa, it's not applicable for online. The fraudulent university called UoP can't operate in South Africa (both physically and online). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.70 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

COI?

When I see small numbers of editors with no other current areas of interest, warring over a contentious subject, it always suggests that they may potentially have a dog in the fight. Please read WP:COI and if you have any connection to the subject, please declare it openly. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Those two users have only been editing this article for years, deleting any kind of non-promotional sources (including official statements from foreign governments, such as South Africa). They will never admit their COI. As you said, they hardly ever edit other articles. --37.162.31.225 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from speculations.I have a long history of editing subjects around climatology,meteorology and LGBT rights from 2010 and I have declared 6 months ago that I do not have COI.Now, stop reverting the edits that were based on the consensus so far. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_the_People/Archive_1&oldid=1029304747"