| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
tumnus
42 Posts |
 Posted - 2006 February 04 : 04:18:19
|
On February 4, 2006, it was revealed that the history section of St. John's College had been changed, presumably by the St. John's College administration. The college removed a section that they deemed unfavorable and replaced it with one that they deemed favorable. The second version was highly biased toward the administrative perspective, only including the St. John's account that the harsh tactics that St. John's was accused of employing were completely false, while neglecting student perspectives found in the rest of the article. As a result, the founders of this website have decided to incorporate the two versions of events into a third version giving both points of view. Future vandalism will not be tolerated and will be reported both to wikipedia and to the media.
The first version runs as follows:
In 2005, St. John's was marred by scandal when it was revealed that the college had employed C.J. McCue to spy on Mark St. John, then the student activities director for the Santa Fe campus, in an effort to find a reason to dismiss him from the college. He sued the college and settled for a year's severance pay.
Students have been complaining about poor treatment by the administration. The college initially refused to conduct an investigation into an alleged rape on the Santa Fe campus. Many students were dismissed from the Annapolis campus after an internal cocaine investigation in which many students claimed that they were falsely accused. There have been complaints about staff attacks on students. Such complaints erupted into student protest when Webster Ye, a senior, was allegedly attacked by Roosevelt Langley, the Annapolis dining hall supervisor.
The second version, presumably replaced by the St. John's College administration, runs as follows:
In 2005, St. John's College, Annapolis suspended eight students, and two others withdrew, following an investigation into drug use at the Annapolis campus. This became generally known in 2006 through postings on a student-run web forum. Anonymous comments on the forum said that the college used manipulative tactics with the accused students. A college spokesperson said the allegations of pressure were "all false," and that the students were treated fairly.
The third version, incorporating both viewpoints of the cocaine investigation as well as restoring the scandals that St. John's had deleted all mention of, although they are verifiable through newspapers and court records, runs as follows:
In 2005, St. John's was marred by scandal when it was revealed that the college had employed C.J. McCue to spy on Mark St. John, then the student activities director for the Santa Fe campus, in an effort to find a reason to dismiss him from the college. He sued the college and settled for a year's severance pay. Students have been complaining about poor treatment by the administration. The college initially refused to conduct an investigation into an alleged rape on the Santa Fe campus. St. John's College, Annapolis suspended eight students, two others withdrew, and three seniors had their degrees delayed for a year following an internal cocaine investigation in which many students claimed that they had been falsely accused. This became generally known in 2006 through postings on a student-run web forum. Anonymous comments on the forum said that the college used manipulative tactics with the accused students. A college spokesperson said the allegations of pressure were "all false," and that the students were treated fairly. There have been complaints about staff attacks on students. Such complaints erupted into student protest when Webster Ye, a senior, was allegedly attacked by Roosevelt Langley, the Annapolis dining hall supervisor.
|
Edited by - tumnus on 2006 June 16 16:08:24 |
|
|
tumnus
42 Posts |
Posted - 2006 February 04 : 04:33:38
|
| Censorship should not be tolerated in an institution such as St. John's. It of course is reasonable for the St. John's College administration to post its own viewpoints of recent events in addition to those found on wikipedia so people can decide for themselves which version seems more believable. The St. John's College administration believes that it is beneficial to delete all mention of an event rather than discuss their own version of events. This website believes that openness and discussion are important. This is why Morgan White-Smith's comment criticizing this forum's existence was not deleted, but elevated to its own category. The administration is welcome to comment on this site and to attempt to convince people that its viewpoint is correct. Respectful dialogue should always be welcomed, not suppressed, by a school that spends so much time studying Plato. |
Edited by - tumnus on 2006 February 04 04:35:05 |
 |
|
|
sjcodysseus
4 Posts |
Posted - 2006 February 04 : 18:20:07
|
The history section of the aforementioned wikipedia article was not changed by the St. John's administration. Primarily, it was changed by two people, only one of whom (myself) is connected to the college. I am a junior at the Santa Fe campus.
Wikipedia's policy on edits is as follows. Unsourced or unverifiable material may be removed. In this case, there were four end notes given. Three of these (two instances of 'lawsuit records', and one of 'internal SJC security reports') cannot be verified. Wiki policy is clear that the burden of evidence is on the editor to provide clickable links or at least publically available records. This is why the Washington Post article remained. One user posted a note on the articles 'Talk' page that said he didn't think it was appropriate for the article. Discussion ensued of both the Post article material and the unverifiable material. There was not one comment supporting the keeping of this material. It was subsequently removed. Someone (presumably someone from this forum) replaced it. Five minutes ago, I removed the material again. I refer you to the Wikipedia talk page on the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St._John's_College%2C_U._S. |
|
|
|
sjcodysseus
4 Posts |
Posted - 2006 February 04 : 22:32:13
|
I thought I'd clarify just a bit. From Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page.
"A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript has been published by the court. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication."
From Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it."
Also, the statement "St. John's was marred by scandal" violates the Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" policy, cited by Wiki founder Jimbo Wales as the most important policy at Wikipedia.
This should address the first three removals. The Washington Post removal was done after significant discussion among the page's active editors on the talk page. Consensus was reached, and the material, deemed unsuitable for an encyclopedia, was removed.
I hope this further addresses your concerns. |
|
|
|
tumnus
42 Posts |
Posted - 2006 February 05 : 00:23:39
|
| Thanks for your comments. It was wrong for me to presume that the St. John's administration was responsible for the deletion without any evidence. It now seems reasonable to keep the information off Wikipedia until verifiable evidence is obtained. |
Edited by - tumnus on 2006 February 05 00:24:18 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
History Section Alteration
