Talk:Leicester Student Magazine

[Untitled]
This is a great article, not in true Wiki style but for we Leicester Students it is great

It was indeed, but the Wikipedia fascists changed it. I suppose it's more relevant now, but I don't think it indicates just how bad the Ripple has become lately.

The criticism piece is completely irrelevant. The wikipedia article is a statement of fact about what the ripple is and does. Not what anyone's individual opinion on the paper is.

Not true. Wikipedia articles in general display popular opinions (which this is) as long as they are stated as such. The fact that a significant portion of the readership have serious critiscm on the running of the paper is an important one and adds insight.

Ripple is read, as the article states, by nearly 10 000 students. The phrase "significant portion of the readership" is just not the case. It does not add insight. When you see an article for a cd or newspaper you have facts about it. For example the page about the NME says when the NME is published, who edits it and what it deals with. It doesn't say that some people have decided they don't like its opinion or the bands it writes about. For that reason the criticism piece is completely irrelevant.

I think this differs though as the critisism comes from the people who own the publication and whose views it is meant to represent. As for the 'significant proportion' reference, the only data available is the amount of memebers in the pro/anti ripple groups on facebook. Last i checked anti-ripple had 4-5 times as many members.

The ripple group is not a pro group, it is a members/alumni group. Hence not being called "The Ripple is Amazing" or something. So again it's proved irrelevant. The "Lets Make Victoria Park More Dangerous Group" has over 250 members, but it would be stupid to put on the wikipedia article for victoria park that a group of students are campaigning to make it more dangerous. This article should tell you what the ripple is and does, not any one's opinion on it. Else perhaps it should have praise and indifference sections as well.

Since the Wikipedia moderators have described the repeated removal of the criticism section as vandalism, it is vandalism, pure and simple. Criticism IS a legitimate topic for Wikipedia articles - please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticisms for examples of Wikipedia articles dealing EXCLUSIVELY with critical viewpoints. Maybe it's more a reflection on the Ripple that within one month of having a Wikipedia page it had acquired its very own criticism section.

Or perhaps more a reflection on the people who continue to edit the page that they simply have nothing better to do?

Wow, how insightful. You don’t write for the Ripple, do you?

Yes, hence am maintaning its page.

Figures. I guess there’s absolutely nothing remotely subjective about the Ripple staff editing a page about their own newspaper, especially when you are repeatedly removing the criticism section. Strange how the Wikipedia policy guidelines actually rule against this (here and here), no?

We created the page and therefore maintain it. We created it, not to prove a point or promote ourselves but to guide people looking for the paper to the correct site. Various places still list our old website and some can't find it at all. While we build our new site this is our main point of reference. The criticism section is just stupid and makes claims that just aren't true. That's why we continue to remove it. The page doesn't make claims that the paper is great, just what it is, how often it comes out, any stories that have been picked up nationally and the current staff roster. As said above you could keep the criticism but you'd also have to create a praise section too, or else it just wouldn't be fair.

So put in a praise section, whatever. Just stop removing verifiable (and referenced) material.

You created the page and therefore all Wikipedians maintain it, just as every other article on this site is maintained by Wikipedians.

Can whoever keeps putting in "briefly" and naming individual editors please stop!

Would you not describe a one-off mention (one paragraph in a single article of one newspaper supplement) as brief coverage? We’re not exactly talking front page news here.

True, but for a student newspaper that is a massive deal. Student news hardly ever makes the nationals so in proportion it's pretty big. Equally, if not more so, than the moony story.

I think you'll find that there was plenty of student news in the national press recently, with the issue of tuition fees. I remember many articles across several newspapers that dealt with that, often quoting students and student organisations.

The point is moot - the wording has been changed. Hopefully the current article is now one that all parties can agree on.

Wording of criticism has been changed. Ripple's points of view are not deliberately controversial nor is it aggressive. There is also no question about the factual accuracy of the paper.

No it hasn't - although I agree with you about factual accuracy, which was never legitimately questioned. However, the critism section isn't meant to be subjective, it just reports the opinions expressed by others and both "deliberately controversial" and "aggressive" have been used in the referenced source.

Issue 5 is nearly two months ago now and two issues have passed since. It's safe to say it's in the past.

It doesn't say recently, it says "most recently" which, in the context of the list of criticisms, it is. I think the date should be sufficient to inform most readers that the comments were in the past.

Can whoever keeps putting lots of unsubstantied rubbish please stop!

I feel it would be unfair to describe the additional text in the criticism section as unsubstantiated as, well, it IS  substantiated. Here’s a link to the minutes of the union council meeting held on 9/11/06 – link – the part about fact checking and potential defamation is point 32.1. This link is also referenced in the article. As for the allegations regarding the posters (and these were just allegations, as is stated in the article), they are fairly common knowledge within the union community, and have been referenced to numerous times online (again there is a link to examples of this in the article and here - link. Again, these are currently unverified claims rather than facts – a point made clear in the text.  However, unfounded but genuine rumour is legitimate content for a Wikipedia article if it is specified as such.  So I’d be interested to hear which part of the current article is unsubstantiated.

The new edits make it a lot clearer. Every article printed since 1996 is potentially in violation of the defamation act, the fact is the ripple has never been collared for factual inaccuracy so isn't in violation. I think it's pretty pointless it being there to be honest, but never mind. The proposal was also withdrawn on the grounds that it wouldn't succeed, that is fairly common knowledge and its insight to the article.

Agreed. Cheers for putting in the print circulation figure. I think the “most recently” bit in the criticism section can go too (in fact I took it out) since it’s no longer the most recent (or even recent). We wouldn’t want the Ripple’s Wikipedia page to be misrepresentative…

Updates on the praise section are referenced in print form, there's no reason to take them down.

Any references need to be specified and listed, either as embedded html links or, in the case of print sources, as conventional citations - please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources for details.

Notability
I've removed the warning that the subject might not be notable. It said: The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. There are plenty of references to the Ripple: one in the Guardian, and on BBC TV. And as I've now added, the Ripple's predecessor was founded by Malcolm Bradbury. I think it's notable enough!  J Rawle  (Talk) 10:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lists of former editors and current team
Note that while I've supported the inclusion of an article on the Ripple, and believe it's notable, I don't believe all the previous editors and the entire current editorial team are notable (I was you cheeky bastard). Please do not re-add these lists to the article. Please see Conflict of interest and What Wikipedia is not.  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)