User talk:Dkwalika

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Dkwalika, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Michigan Technological University
I've been taking a look at your recent additions to Tech's page, as well as the edits you made years ago, and I see that much is copied word-for-word from Tech's own website. For that reason, and the fact that the updated numbers are not cited, I have to revert your recent edits. Also, your username looks strikingly similar to that of the Tech employee whose TechAlum Newsletter appears in my inbox twice a month. Even if you're not that person, you seem genuinely interested in improving Tech's Wikipedia page...and I'm glad, because it deserves so much better. So I would encourage you to read firstly Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and then How to develop an article. These will help you think from the perspective of an encyclopedia reader instead of a university promoter. Then, to give you an idea of what a really great university article should contain and how it should read, please read Michigan State University and University of Michigan. These two articles have achieved featured article status, meaning they've been heavily scrutinized and are considered some of the project's best work. Only ten other university articles have reached that level, so it would be great if we could get Michigan Tech up there. For further help with editing/syntax, consult Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia. And I'll be happy to help where I can.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I work for the University, and it's my job to update the Wikipedia page. I'll take a look at UM and MSU, but the beginning to the Tech page as it is, just doesn't do justice to the University. My first attempt was to just bring it up to date. Any content from our site is accurate and not too self promoting, I don't believe. But, if I have to rewrite, then I will.
 * Your most recent copy edit made that sentence more flowery without changing meaning. That's not what we're after here.  Again, please read University of Michigan and Michigan State University and use those as templates.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle  /  fish ) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the phrase "broadening our academic offerings," which is true, and edited the remainder of the sentence for more concise language without changing meaning. That doesn't equal "flowery" in my opinion. I also added the latest citation from Princeton Review and deleted the five-year-old reference to PC magazine.

I have looked at State's and Michigan's and can't see any real difference. I'm at a loss here.
 * It was the "Thanks to these and other efforts" connector that made it worse, although the previous sentence was bad to begin with. The idea was uncited, not to mention meaningless to the disinterested reader.  I rewrote the lead to explain what the university does and that it does it well, while leaving out the explanation of how it's able to do it well.  Nobody cares...at least not in the lead.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle  /  fish ) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As an alumnus, I'm interested in the article's wellbeing. However, I don't think it's within Wikipedia policy for you to be tasked by the school to make changes directly to the articly itself, see WP:CONFLICT. Even if it isn't a conflict of interest, it certainly has the appearance of one, and one of the things I learned about ethics in classes at MTU was that it's best to even avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest ;). As such, I am much more comfortable with you using the  tag on the talk page so that another editor can make the appropriate change. I am quite willing to help improve the article, given appropriate content suggestions with the sources, but I think a University employee making direct edits (possibly resembling plagiarism, as silly as it may sound) is a HUGE no-no and doesn't do the article or the university justice. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to ask, since you are officially tasked to improve the article, that you find third party references for as many or all of the laudatory things in the article. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, while I'm sure the following is quite true:
 * The average overall ACT scores for incoming students is 26.1 in fall 2010,[15] compared to 21.2 nationally. The College of Engineering's environmental engineering, geological engineering, and mechanical engineering enrollments all rank in the top ten nationally.[16] The electrical engineering department uses an innovative "DSP First" curriculum found at only a few leading universities.[17] The cornerstone of this program is an introductory course in digital signal processing (DSP).
 * I think it would be better to cite third-party references for the information, rather than mtu.edu. This is part of what makes a good article, and something that makes the claims more meaningful and less likely to be removed by others. If you could find good external citations for refs 15-18, that would be a great start. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Dennis, the ACT information could only come from Michigan Tech. When a third party publishes this information, it's not because they independently reviewed the qualifications of each enrolled student, it's because they took Tech's word for it.  As far as comparisons to other universities, I agree that third-party citations are preferable, but who makes comparisons down to that level of detail?  Two Hearted River  ( paddle  /  fish ) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added nothing that wasn't objective, frankly, and what I've stated can be verified. I've been asked to make these changes because I am a 27-year employee of our marketing and communications department, am responsible for updating all university facts, figures, and profiles and a keeper of our history for the web. I'm also an alumnus of the graduate school (MS and PhD, Rhetoric and Technical Communication), and I am very capable of only making changes that pertain to accuracy, clarity, grammar, style, and improving the readability of the text. I can't think of a better source on this planet, as a matter of fact. Feel free to ask anyone connected with Michigan Tech. And, the next time I teach a communications class, I'll have them critique the site as well.
 * A better source would be one that's published, because we can't cite your brain. But since you say that your contributions can be verified, please add citations with your contributions.  (Also, when you post a message on this talk page and others, please sign at the end by typing four tildes.)  Two Hearted River  ( paddle  /  fish ) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that no information could be sourced from mtu.edu. Clearly the Enterprise program information best comes direct from MTU, and the UofM article links direct to the university's accredidation page. Nor did I mean to imply that you yourself have made any unacceptable edits (honestly, the article has been broken in this way for quite a while), and I think your changes have been a net positive for the article. Again, I'm hoping to replace as many of these with better citations as possible, particularly considering the very high ratio of citations coming directly from mtu.edu, and the best place to start is laudatory references (if someone lauds MTU for something, let us read it from them). Who compiled the national average of 21.2 on ACTs? Who ranks the engineering programs in the top-10? Who considers DSP-first 'innovative'? For reference from WP:PRIMARY:
 * Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.
 * Let's fix the sources in the instances that violate this policy as it's low-hanging-fruit, then we can focus on the rest of the article. Clearly, many of them are acceptable, but others are not. You may note I removed some WP:PEACOCK stuff from the section on Enterprise (an experience that I found deeply valuable to myself, btw) because I couldn't justify calling it 'innovative' without a third-party source.
 * I only ask Dkwalika because I believe he is positioned to have an easier time finding these sources for us since he can talk directly with the people involved. I'm not trying to lay blame or judge, but while we're working on the article, we might as well be doing it right. I would love to see the article hit GA or FA, but it will take more than just having the most up-to-date numbers. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We get ACT scoring averages from our Institutional Analysis office. Enrollment numbers come from ASEE and elsewhere. I don't have the time to dig all these up for every fact that I spout. Maybe you should just talk to IA and ASEE. I'm doing the best I can, with knowledge I possess, and I'm becoming exhausted reading through and dealing with all this. My low-hanging fruit is becoming a burden. And I'll revisit this when I have time. But, I've got work to do, a vacation coming up, and I know that every word I've typed is true. It's the way I was raised and educated. I'm disheartened by the whole process.Dkwalika (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody doubts what you say is the truth. However, everything written on Wikipedia must be a fact, meaning verifiable. It's the same as any other essay or paper, we need to cite good sources. I can't just say 'MTU is an esteemed University' without citing the people and groups who hold it in esteem.
 * No need to hurry, just trying to explain why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources when available. If you can forward along any contacts (or point them this way themselves) I (or possibly Two_Hearted_River) would be willing to find the information ourselves. If your primary concern is factual accuracy of numbers and figures, don't stress yourself out with additional cleanup if it doesn't interest you on its own, it's not your fault the article needs cleanup. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Michigan Tech photographs
Dennis, Because of your position within Michigan Technological University, you are in a unique position to help improve Tech-related Wikipedia articles by contributing high-quality (in terms of composition, etc., if not resolution) photographs of the campus and events, both current and historical. These contributions are naturally less susceptible to a conflict-of-interest charge, yet are in line with your goal of promoting the university. I think you'll agree that part of what makes Michigan State's page so great is that it's illustrated with high-quality photographs...and State's campus/setting is nowhere near as beautiful as Tech's.

If you're willing to work on this – by locating images and figuring out who owns and can release them – I'll help with the logistics on the Wikipedia side. The images will have to be released under a CC-BY-SA license, which means that anyone could reuse and potentially modify the image for any purpose, so long as derivative works are released under the same license. Let me know what you think.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 17:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)