Talk:HighScope

--Angr (t·c) 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Red flags I see here
Hi. Stumbled across this article, so I do not have the benefit of any previous discussions that may have occurred on this topic. I see two things that concern me here: I don't really care about this topic and I don't have knowledge to judge neutrality in this field. But these red flags are objective and easy to recognize so I have tagged them as such. --Ds13 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is heavily sourced to publications by HighScope, what I would consider a primary source.  This is probably not a good thing -- it suggests that verifiability or neutrality may be more difficult to achieve in the article.  Easy solution for this:  reliable secondary sources.
 * 2) One of the major contributors, or perhaps two, appears to be affiliated with HighScope.  Marcella Weiner and, separate account, MF Weiner.  These connections may be confirmed by web searches.  This suggests that, perhaps, neutrality should be questioned or that there is, perhaps, a conflict of interest.  Or not.  Someone familiar with this field should comment.

I agree that it should get a questionable neutrality header.
This article reads like an ad. It should get a neutrality header. Chuck Baggett (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect from Perry Preschool Project
The Perry Preschool Project was a research program to determine the effectiveness of universal preschool. This appears to be a specific educational methodology. They are not the same thing.

128.252.20.193 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree: I'm not an expert on either HighScope or Perry Preschool, but it looks to me like HighScope was created to promote extending the lessons learned from the Perry Preschool.  I think the redirect is appropriate.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism
There should definitely be a criticism section somewhere here. Chris Blattman suggests in a blog that this is not a very robust study (http://chrisblattman.com/2015/10/12/society-is-paying-a-high-price-in-dollars-and-human-suffering-for-wrong-assumptions/).

Hasire (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HighScope. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521150343/http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=253 to http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=253
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130232307/http://www.ymcawo.ca/ChildCareWeb/historyhs.html to http://www.ymcawo.ca/ChildCareWeb/historyhs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations
This article shows a very high score on Earwig's Copyvio Detector: 92.1%. That is unacceptable unless it is a false positive!

The two sources which the article is potentially plagiarising are:
 * https://www.caymaninternationalschool.org/uploaded/academics/CIS_Paradigms/CIS_Paradigms.pdf (92.1%)
 * https://www.shantijuniors.com/why-shanti-juniors/teaching-approaches (53.7%, including most of the lede!)

If these sources have copied the text from us (and we are sure about that) then the article is OK. If we have copied from them, or from a source that they have also copied, then that is not OK.

I can't tell which is the case but it does not look good. In some cases the text in the links above is worse than ours, possibly indicating that we copied it and then cleaned it up a bit. However, there a section where the non-Wikipedia version has inexplicable hyphens in it. That could indicate that it was ineptly copied from us, or just as plausibly from somewhere else, and that our version is either the original version or a cleaned up copy of their copy. (Or maybe it was just badly written in the first place.)

What I do not see is any strong indicators that the text was copied from us. There is no attribution to us and our text is so badly referenced that you can't just say "Aha! They took our text and ripped all the reference tags out." But then the large quantity of unreferenced material here is a separate issue that might justify cutting a lot of it out anyway.

I'm going to tag the article but not gut it for now but if there really is any plagiarism of copyrighted sources here then we will have to remove the content. It's not just a good idea. It's the law! --DanielRigal (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There has been no comment or improvement in a week and we can't just ignore possible copyright violations. I was going to gut out all the matching content but I noticed that some of it does have very old dated "primary sources" tags on it. I missed that before. As the content is old then that makes it less likely that we have copied it from the sources that the Copyvio Detector finds. If it was properly sourced I'd be more inclined to leave it but my suspicion now is that it is lifted from the reference material and that the same chunks were also used by the sites which the Copyvio Detector finds. I've kicked the whole "Central concepts" section out as it has been tagged as bad for years and it reads like it was pasted from somewhere else. This has got the score down to 53.7%, if we ignore one source that openly admits that it is copying from us (which is perfectly legit). There is still a lot on the lede that is flagged as possible copyvio but at least it is a bit better now. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Copyright violation is an important issue, but I'm going to have to express my doubts in this particular case. The change that added the bulk of this paragraph to the lead can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HighScope&type=revision&diff=402878657&oldid=398331991. It's from December 2010. See also this 2005 version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HighScope&oldid=32199541, with the sentence "The adults working with the children should see themselves more as facilitators or partners than managers or supervisors" which shows that significant parts of the paragraph (matching the school copy) were added at different times by different users, and very early on. I think it's extremely likely that the schools copied from Wikipedia, and I suggest removing the copyright template from this page. Thanks. Devinplatt (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Heads up. I made a substantial change in the lead section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HighScope&type=revision&diff=906707940&oldid=902586420, following other substantial changes to the article) and I've removed the non-free template. Best, Devinplatt (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

New Secondary Source Material
NPR has done some recent reporting on the Perry Preschool project which may be useful for this page
 * https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=721733303
 * https://www.michiganradio.org/post/new-research-finds-benefits-landmark-ypsilanti-preschool-project-are-multigenerational

I don't have time to add info from these sources to the page right now, but I may come back and do some editing later. If I forget though maybe someone else will see this and fill in? Hope this helps. Devinplatt (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I just added content from the NPR source, but the Michigan Radio source may still have some good use so I'll wait before removing this talk section just yet! Devinplatt (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)