Talk:DOBA Faculty of Applied Business and Social Studies Maribor

Untitled
In response to anonymous user editing the article about Doba Faculty with unbalanced and seemingly partially researched topic: ''16:45, 4 February 2014‎ 129.27.32.116 (talk)‎. . (8,777 bytes) (+1,849)‎. . (Undid revision 592293842 by (talk) Well cited information should not be removed. Please discuss in Talk page. User Oknesaj seems to be related to the Doba organisation.) (undo)''


 * 1) User Okenesaj is not affiliated with Doba Faculty
 * 2) Having a paragraph called "Criticism" based on a handful of reported cases in the past is too strong and unbalanced view. If you take for example case of London School of Economics with Doctorate for money case (Gaddafi), wiki article related to it doesn't have "Criticism" paragraph - so if you want to mention those few cases, please incorporate that into the general body of the article and please mention the steps that Doba Faculty undertook to minimize chances for repetition of such or similar issues (see point 4).
 * 3) Statistically speaking the number of cases is so small that it doesn't merit really inclusion - i.e. every school faced and keeps facing exactly the same issues as Doba.
 * 4) While the number of reported cases was small, Doba Faculty has improved its procedures (proctoring) in addition to previously existing mechanisms it uses to avoid plagiarism - and it keeps improving them as has been acknowledged by UNIQe certification by awarded by EFQUEL as well as the Slovenia's government repeatedly renewed license to operate as an educational body.
 * 5) IMO, those old cases could be better placed under 'diploma mill' subject as potential reference, but you should really use properly registered user name rather then keep hiding behind an IP address, to give a chance to Doba Faculty to reply or take that as an issue with Wikipedia if proved to be wrong.

Kind regards,


 * Please sing your posts to Talk page. Also, you claim that you are not replated to Doba and at the same time you have information on Doba internal matters that were published nowhere. You say "Doba Faculty has improved its procedures (proctoring)...". Please cite such information. Moreover, you call articles published in late 2013 'old cases'. They were published in 2012 and 2013 and are not old at all. Maybe Criticism is a hard word. I suggest 'Problems' or something softer if you agree. 212.183.49.205 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were to research a subject little deeper it would become apparent, I suggest you try with google search on keywords: Doba remote procotoring bogdan skof - and you may learn more. As suggested, nothing against adding that bit into the main body of the article, but not to change to tone of the article to the negative. I'm not affiliated with Doba. Signature available in history. Comment added by Oknesaj (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This section contains important and well cited information on Doba school. It should be kept. In stead of Criticism in could be called Reputation and Scandals. This does not imply anything negative. Kangler scandal is highly relevant. As it was confirmed by school, it triggered major revision of its policies. 83.65.9.154 (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okensaj user seems highly related to Doba school although he denies it. History shows that this user created the page. Let's try to get a broader consensus here.83.65.9.154 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A Criticism section should stay on this page. Seems relevant. 80.122.81.238 (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Stay. Definitely. Skiexpert13 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)