Jump to content

Talk:Accreditation mill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Article focus is not sufficiently clear

KatiaRoma's recent edit summaries caused me to say "DOH!!! This article is supposed to be about fraudulent 'accreditors,' but as written it's mostly about 'unrecognized' accreditors, which are totally different." We need to find some good sources that will provide a basis for talking about proven or alleged accreditation mills and bogus accreditors (such as International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities, Association of Distance Learning Programs, Distance Learning Council of Europe, and World Association of Universities and Colleges) without sweeping into the same net (1) accreditors that are merely unrecognized, such as National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges, and (2) "accreditors" that provide certification of religious doctrinal purity, but not of educational quality or effectiveness.

One attribute of some "accreditation mills" that can be discussed (with cited sources) is that they accredit just one institution and are located at the same mailing address as that institution. Another accreditation mill attribute that could be discussed in the article is that agencies that charge a small flat fee for accreditation (such as Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools) cannot possibly be performing the type of thorough review conducted by the recognized accreditors. What else should be in this article? --Orlady 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good points you make. Another one that charges a flat fee is the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions (AATI) (in Rocky Mount, North Carolina). They would gladly accredit the institution I currently direct, but we have not taken them up on the offer. Hee hee. If we did, we'd suddenly be "accredited" and that would mean you'd have to take us off the list of unaccredit institutions, eh? That comes back around to the many differences between "recognized" accrediting agencies, unrecognized (who decides what "recognition" means? And recognition by whom constitutes "recognition"?) known accrediting mills, self-created accrediting agencies, and other manifestations of accrediting agencies. A whole 'nother kettle of fish -- just like religious schools vs. academic. Don't get me started. But here we go now with the difference between religious accreditors and those claiming to be academic accreditors, the immense difference between the religious educational community and academia. Yikes. --KatiaRoma 09:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with Orlady that the focus is unclear! See below and discuss there. JJB 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Merge this article and Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations into List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, as this is just saying the same controversial thing three ways, and review of all three indicates no objective criterion for inclusion that would permit the category to be maintained with WP:NPOV. Proposing discussion only, not inserting templates at this time. Please discuss at Talk:List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. JJB 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New sources

I appreciate Orlady attempting to answer my concerns by providing more sources. These will need to be reviewed, as they do not seem to clarify the inclusion criteria much better, nor to remove much of the bias in phrasing and placement. This is completely an opposition article; there is no whit of indication what the institutions themselves think or that they have anything more to contribute than rocks do. This makes it necessary for the truly NPOV editor to "defend the defenseless" and find out what these organizations' self-identifications and views on accreditation are, and particularly their views on any differences between themselves and other organizations. The fact that sources have been added does not abolish this requirement (NPOV), it merely requires an amount of legwork equal to that of the "antimill" sources. When I am ready to engage that amount of effort to bring NPOV to this topic area, I shall return. JJB 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The last time I looked, this article (Accreditation mill) is not a list, so it does not need "inclusion criteria." Rather, it is an article about the concept of "accreditation mills." I believe you are confusing this article with List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations, which is a separate article -- and which needs to remain separate because inclusion on that list does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia or the cited sources have labeled an entity as an "accreditation mill."
My expansion to the article added new sourced content on the concept and how the term is defined and used. I also deleted some content that was allegedly sourced to the Capital Times newspaper, but turned out to be original research inserted in front of the footnote by an anon IP user. I also deleted that same content from the list article, where another user had copied it without verifying it. Contrary to allegations that I have been playing an ownership game with this article, I find that this is only the second time I made any substantive edits to the article. The only other content changes I made were in July 2007, when I added the Capital Times newspaper reference (which for a long time was the only inline citation in the article) and the information that actually came from that source (not the claptrap recently inserted by the anon).
Having said all that, I will be interested in seeing the results of your quest for reliably sourced content that presents accreditation mills in a favorable light (note that Wikipedia needs third-party content, not self-promotion from "organizations" that apparently exist only as nearly anonymous webpages like http://fgcfi.tripod.com/wwac.htm). In general, if Wikipedians have found any reliable third-party info about an unrecognized accrediting organization, an article has been created for the the organization (examples include World Association of Universities and Colleges, World Online Education Accrediting Commission, and Accrediting Commission International). If you are able to find good information about other unrecognized accreditors (or ones that have articles), it will help in developing new articles. --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JJB, it appears to me that your comment may indicate that you desire to POV push a particular side. My understanding is that we should generally find good sources and then the article should reflect what those sources say. Although I must agree with Orlady that it will be interesting to see what you can come up other than self published information that can't be used because it is self serving. Zugman (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accreditation mill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Accreditation mill. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accreditation_mill&oldid=1204480624"