Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 25 July 2008

Schools Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in New York may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

My Letter to Wikiwag

I recently wrote this letter directly to the user, Wikiwag, regarding the pattern of his contributions to the Family Foundation School article. There are instances of anger affecting what I wrote. If I strayed from certain standards of decorum in writing this letter, I apologize and will refrain from doing so in the future. However, I believe the core of what I wrote is a well reasoned, non-personal objection. Here is what I wrote:

Patrickcolleton (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

I find the edits you have made to the Family Foundation School article to be of poor intellectual integrity. Your profile indicates a commitment to neutrality, a commitment I believe you have flaunted. Despite your notations such as "rewritten for readability" attached to each of your edits, one can clearly see that the changes you have made only support a positive view of the Family School. You have (rightly) removed undocumented negative information about the Family. However, statements like "The school, many alumni and their parents point to a decades-long history of producing graduates that lead successful, productive lives." are entirely uncited, yet complimentary and thus you have left them alone. How many graduates and parents? According to whom? I find that particular statement very dishonest because it prefaces the paragraph on certain negative information about the Family. It gives the impression that only Jon Martin-Crawford and a small, fringe group of people hold a negative view of the Family Foundation School. To write a neutral article is not just to mention all views on a given subject in some way. Honesty requires that one accurately represent how popular each given view is. Of the 30 or so graduates and former Family School program participants with whom I have spoken since my leaving there in 2000, more than half have held the opinion that the Family School has had a mostly negative impact on their lives. Only a few have had mixed opinions, whereas only 2 or 3 truly defended the majority of Family school practices. Now can I prove this represents an accurate cross-section of graduates? Clearly not. However, even this much data shows your rendering of those who criticize FFS to be deceptive and manipulative. What's more, you condensed a section on the House Hearing I wrote a while back, and surrounded it with complimentary information. Again, the effect is to minimize the impact of ideas you don't like. I've written a number of similar letters to you and other Family staff. I feel these letters have been respectfully written and well reasoned. However, I have not gotten a single response. I think that is because they scare you. You do not want to look at evidence that challenges your view of the Family. The same process of introspection that was required of us as students does not seem to be practiced by staff when confronted with your own Pink Elephant in the room. If anyone criticizes the Family, they are lying to themselves. If anyone reputable has a different opinion than yours, they are the wrong opinions. If data on long term success contradicts what you like to think about your efficacy, the data is wrong. Just like an alcoholic: everyone but me is wrong.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Patrick Colleton

Patrick: I apologize for being tardy in my reply. Let me be clear sole purpose is to write an article with a neutral point of view. Full disclosure: while I do have a somewhat more than passing familiarity with the school, I am not an employee. I have however, seen first-hand the positive, long-term impact of the school's program since yours or John's involvement. This is what prompted me to write the article in the first place. If you care to check my contribution history, you'll note that I've edited a wide variety of articles over the past 19 months since I've joined the Misplaced Pages community, as fairly as possible and where possible, without WP:Bias. I will say again, Misplaced Pages is not a WP:Soapbox, where editors with well-established bias (e.g. you and Jon) can use an article to advance their own point of view or original research. I disagree with Jon's dismissal of the validity of and subsequent deletion the Woodbury Reports as a reliable source (and no, I don't work for them, either), as it meets the Misplaced Pages definition of the term.

With all this said, I will thank you to WP:CHILL, and refrain from calling the fairness of my editing into question. With all due respect, my edit history does not support the allegation. - Wikiwag 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Congressional testimony

In the interest of neutral point of view and achieving consensus, what are people's opinions on how the Jon Martin-Crawford testimony should be handled? Once we reach consensus, we can make the appropriate edits to the article. - Wikiwag 17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not neutral, as it is my testimony. However, my opinion is this: if it is out, then FFS response to it is out as well. If it is in, and FFS response is in, my direct response to claims made against me should be in as well. Any specifics, good or bad, should be there all inclusive...the same for Betton House, as it has been proven through substantiated communication with the colleges it "affiliated with" that it is NOT affiliated in any way. Isn't truth more important? As I've cited before, we have firsthand communication with the colleges to back this.DJJONE5NY (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5ny

Firstly, let me state that what you've done on a personal level takes a great deal of courage and I salute you for it. I also understand what you're trying to accomplish with this article, as I came to Misplaced Pages with a similar misconception about verifiability vs. "truth," when it came to something I felt passionately about; namely Waldorf Education. Suffice it to say that I got a hard-and-fast lesson in that concept and soon found myself drawn into an arbitration that I had no idea even existed. Believe me when I say, it was ugly - and many of the scars from that experience even now remain on my talk page.

Whether you agree with Woodbury Reports or not is irrelevant; it is still an independent industry trade journal that has both a printed publication and a website, making them by Misplaced Pages definition, a reliable source. The fact that they rightly, wrongly or indifferently has published verbatim, the school's response to your testimony in both their printed pages and their website does nothing to change the source's definition, as that was their editorial choice. Conversely, your response does not meet the test with the reference you've cited. Moreover, you have a clear conflict of interest, because of your understandable, yet unavoidable bias (this is not a criticism, but I suspect you'll agree it is a fact). Your cited reference unfortunately also violates the self-publishing prohibition. The same is true for you Betton House argument and the associated emails.

With all of this said, if you can cite something from say ... Mother Jones, Maia Szalavitz, Huffington Post, other journalistic outlet, independent author or publication, then your response is allowable. Another option might be removing the Congressional testimony altogether in favor of the CAFETY article, but I think that would skew things too far the other way and eliminate an important event and associated set of facts. - Wikiwag 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that testimonies from both side should appear. Otherwise the article will end up like Mission Mountain School where staffmembers have altered the article so the GAO hearing is portraited like an article in the tabloid press. The MMS article is now a advertisement for the facility. Articles should be balanced - even when describing places like Stutthof. It is only the number of deaths victims that separate them. I believe that it can be done. Because we disagree what kind of place this facility in reality are, I have flagged the article. Covergaard (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me, so long as it's properly sourced. To show good faith, I've removed their response and added the NPOV box, until we can settle the issue. Cheers! - Wikiwag 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the remainder of the reference to the FFS response, as it makes claims that have yet to be proven. If someone wants to provide evidence that all staff are certified, maybe that would help as well. I appreciate you working with us to make this as unbiased as possible. However, if the only thing stating they are "trained" is that letter, then it seems just as invalid as our Betton House information.DJJONE5NY (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)djjone5ny

• Start-Class school articles
• Low-importance school articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of schools
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in New York