Talk:University of the People/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spam: notable faculty and scholars etc.

Please avoid writing about "notable faculty and scholars at University of the People" etc.: despite their résumés published on UoPeople.edu, these people don't actually teach or work at UoPeople.edu, which in fact has no professors. Therefore it is misleading information. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for this rather extraordinary claim? ElKevbo (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim, it's how UoPeople.edu works. I asked them by email what courses they teach at UoPeople.edu and the answer is none. On the other hand, UoPeople.edu (through its address info@uopeople.edu) usually avoid answering, or says "they helped to develop the curriculum", which seems pretty vague. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So you don't have any evidence for your claim...? ElKevbo (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If by "evidence" you mean a legal document which proves that, well, it doesn't exist. But I could reverse your question: is there any evidence that those people teach and/or work at UoPeople.edu? Answer: no. And if they did, there should be evidence. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Guys its largely irrelevant, most of the people mentioned weren’t either faculty or admins (just on some sort of non-executive council) and the main text simply wasn’t supported by the sources given. I have no idea whether or not they have real faculty or not, but emailing people is not the way to do things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The alleged faculty is made up of undisclosed "volunteer instructors" (definitely not the résumés published on the website). On top of that, the volunteer instructors have very limited room for manoeuvre because of the ubiquitous "peer-assessment" system. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 09:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Below the names of all the instructors both for undergad/graduate programmes. I am counting around 600 instructors in total

https://catalog.uopeople.edu/ug_term1_item/university-leadership-and-instructional-personnel/uopeople-course-instructors

https://catalog.uopeople.edu/graduate-catalog-t1/university-leadership-and-instructional-personnel/uopeople-course-instructors Weatherextremes (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thats not an independent source or a reliable one, we already know we cant trust University of the People. They play too fast and loose with facts. Also how did you count them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Do all those people exist? I just googled the first name on the first list and he doesn't show up. I even added "business administration" in order to be more specific and avoid potential cases of homonymy but I still get no results. In theory it's not required to appear on Google, but it's pretty unusual in the academic world.
I don't have enough time to check all those names. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

wow you clearly know what? I mean come on you could not be more biased against UoPeople. Also I did not share the links as an independent source, but rather to make the point that instructors exist despite this weird fixation about instructors (among other things) (Personal attack removed) Weatherextremes (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not biased against them, I’ve just not ever seen anything which suggests they’re a reliable source about themselves and the sketchy Reddit posts you shared are what tanked my opinion of the org so you have nobody to blame for that but yourself and UP. Now how exactly did you count them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think its a weird fixation, one of the first questions anyone is going to ask about a school is “who teaches there?” and we literally don't have a clear answer to that question from either independent sources or the org themselves. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, you've got to stop calling me a "sockpuppet". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... I was ignoring the personal attacks because its next to useless telling Weatherextremes to stop, they just keep doing it so I thought it best to stick to meat. But seriously, Weatherextremes cut it out. This is going to be a shitty last month for you if you don’t start contributing in a civil and competent manner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Maybe a new investigation on meatpuppets should start Weatherextremes (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weatherextremes, please make that the last time you cast aspersions about another editor here - youve been warned previously by others - or I will block you from the talkpage as well. Stick to discussing the article please. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I might have been wrong since that investigation was closed. (Personal attack removed) Weatherextremes (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The org has published their names. I mean I get it you see red when a uopeople link comes up but it is easy to discern that they are open about who their instructors are. Anyway, it is a matter of time until they get regional accreditation so none of this will matter Weatherextremes (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see red, I see an editor in too deep who can’t find anything at the bottom of the hole except self-published information from an unreliable organization. I genuinely don’t care whether they get regional accreditation or not, thats a silly thing for an uninvolved wikipedia editor to care about or even be interested in. You are an uninvolved wikipedia editor right? No connection to these people you wish to disclose? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regional accreditation? This article was published on UoPeople.edu one year ago but, if it is truthful, why is University of the People not on this list? https://www.wscuc.org/institutions It should be mentioned as "Candidate".
Even assuming that the article is not just clickbait promo material, the hypothetical regional accreditation is going to be a very long process, because the school is not even a candidate at the moment. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should pay attention to the whole accreditation process. UoPeople still is in the eligibility step, candidacy is the next step. https://www.wscuc.org/content/How-to-Become Weatherextremes (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should pay attention to the fact that wscuc.org doesn't say that UoPeople.edu "is in the eligibility step", which is just an uncorroborated claim made last year in one of the many clickbait self-promo UoPeople.edu blog posts. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 20:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no list from wscuc for institutions that are in the eligibility phase. WSCUC requires from institutes themselves to provide a specific public statement, which UoPeople has done Weatherextremes (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You should read the manual that you posted. Not only does it not state that, but it actually says "No statement should be made about possible future accreditation status or qualification not yet conferred by the Commission." —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you should be the one paying attention.Go to page 9 and find the statement that institutions need to make on presenting their eligibility. No one said anything about a statement of possible future accreditation. As per page 9 of the manual the statement on presenting eligibility must read:

“(Name of institution) has applied for Eligibility from the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). WSCUC has reviewed the application and determined that (Name of institution) is eligible to proceed with an application for Initial Accreditation. A determination of Eligibility is not a formal status with WSCUC, nor does it ensure eventual accreditation; it is a preliminary finding that the institution is potentially accreditable and can proceed to be reviewed for Initial Accreditation with WSCUC. The first visit for achieving Initial Accreditation must take place within five years of being granted Eligibility. Questions about Eligibility may be directed to the institution or to WSCUC at www.wascsenior.org or at 510-748-9001.”

You can find that very statement from UoPeople here:

https://www.uopeople.edu/about/worldwide-recognition/press-releases/uopeople-receives-wasc-accreditation-eligibility/ Weatherextremes (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

UoPeople.edu press releases and self-promo articles are deceptive as usual due to several clickbait misleading subtleties. Indeed, they use the expression accreditation eligibility — see the title and the URL of the article you posted — which means that the school is eligible for accreditation, while it was eligible to start the accreditation process: a very different concept. By the way, I wrote "was" instead of "is" because it is unclear if the school is still eligible. Other clickbait UoPeople.edu blog articles state that "the University of the People received approval to be regionally accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC)", which is blatantly false, or "University of the People offers fully accredited degrees", which is a contradiction because if they already were "fully accredited" there would be no need to seek WASC accreditation. The list is much longer, actually, and the claims on social media are even worse, where the admin writes that "we will be accredited in a few years" (there's no evidence/proof).
Therefore, adding a "disclaimer" in a misleading article doesn't eliminate its deceptiveness.
And by the way, WSCUC does not require schools to make public statements (it says "If an institution chooses to state publicly", not "an institution must state publicly"): UoPeople.edu chose to (not should) make public statements, and the problem is they are misleading as usual. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 04:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement from UoPeople is pretty clear and followed word for word the statement as per guidelines of WSCUC in page 9. Yes, UoPeople chose to make the statement, while the title of the URL is only an indexing issue and has nothing to do with misleading anyone . I understand you are compelled to find the most obscure details to twist anything related to UoPeople but you can do better. Weatherextremes (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Listen, I have repeatedly said I have been doing a lot of research about the org mainly bsc its mission fascinates me, however what I see about you is that you are totally biased against uopeople, trying to kill each and every valid source I have provided while turning a blind eye on junk sources (forbes etc). Also I just said that I provided the catalog just to make the point that the org is open about its instructors despite your fixations Weatherextremes (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Student number source

The source below should be ok for updating student number to 51.322

https://www.zenger.news/2021/01/20/an-education-without-student-debt-has-even-olympic-champion-simone-biles-studying-online/ Weatherextremes (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Zenger is not a WP:RS, its an online pseudowire. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that? Weatherextremes (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Its on you to demonstrate thats its a high quality reliable source not on me to demonstrate it isn’t, see WP:RS. I’m just sharing what I know about the source, I’m surprised you didn't know this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean how do you know this about Zenger. I can't seem to locate it in any list of unreliable sources or maybe I just missed it Weatherextremes (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no list of unreliable sources, thats not how it works. Again its the person who wants to use the source who has to demonstrate reliability, please do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok so it's only your personal opinion that it is a pseudowire, right? Weatherextremes (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe thats the technical term, they aren’t a full wire service but they attempt to emulate one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, if you claim that a source is unreliable, then you should support that. From what I see it looks like a reliable source. Why do you object to using this as a source? What would you consider evidence that a source is a reliable source? Otherwise, you are just making a claim with no basis and that no one can prove. Horse Eye's Back, "who wants to use the source who has to demonstrate reliability" what would you consider a demonstration of reliability?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.9.93 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is no proof that Simone Biles is still a student at UoPeople.edu. Previously, she was already a student elsewhere. Will she remain a student forever? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - If you want to tell if it's a press release from a wire, search the text of the article on Google. There are a dozen articles that are word-for-word copies of this in similar wires. It's a press release; not a reliable source. - Aoidh (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yale and Harvard collaborations/Edtechchronicle source

I have now killed the RfC as per the advice of other editors and have initiated a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Yale/Harvard collaborations here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Yale_University_and_Pasadena_Now_sources

Also the Edtechchronicle on the Edinburgh collaboration should go since this is a self published source. If we do not have an agreement on this one we can also take it in the Reliable sources Noticeboard Weatherextremes (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As for Yale, I get an error page. According to archive.org, the "collaboration" with UoPeople.org (not UoPeople.edu, which did not yet exist) was supposed to be supervised by a Yale professor who does not collaborate with UoPeople.edu anymore. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 20:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And the "collaboration" with Harvard is not a specific collaboration proper because anyone can ask to be added to the webpage: https://online.hbs.edu/organizations/collaborating-colleges/ —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 04:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Yale link: https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/yale-isp-and-university-people-partner-digital-education-research Here the Harvard collaboration source: https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/university-of-the-people-joins-harvard-business-school-online-collaboration/

Here the details of the collaboration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7yyFOVRs4Q&ab_channel=UniversityofthePeople Weatherextremes (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also the 990 source should go as it is primary, again if no agreement arises we can take it to the Reliable sources Noticeboard Weatherextremes (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not necessarily a "primary source": to be precise, it's an official document filed by University of the People every year and made public by law by a government agency. This doesn't mean that the document must be removed: I inserted a "non-primary source needed" tag simply because adding more secondary sources would be better. The fact that you want to delete this document confirms the lack of transparency from University of the People and its marketers. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 10:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not call me a UoPeople marketer, it shows lack of good faith from your side Weatherextremes (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where did I write you are a marketer? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of 990 form its fair to keep it with the tag however I do not see the reason of creating both an Israel office section and an ltd section all based on that source. It is as if for some reason you want to give undue weight to the Israel thing . A couple of sentences for both would suffice merging both sections into one Weatherextremes (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A PO box in the US can't be considered "headquarters". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Edtech source should go

The following sentence: however, according to UE spokesperson Ranald Leask, zero students have moved from UoPeople to UE, as of July 2019 based on the republication from the unreliable Forbes contributor should go Weatherextremes (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a different source which states that many students moved from UoPeople to UE instead? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The point is that this source is junk and it should go. The only valid source right now is the one around the collaboration. Also the collaboration with Harvard and Yale should be added since the sources are high quality. Weatherextremes (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those three sources are high quality. There is no WP:DUEWEIGHT for the inclusion of the Harvard and Yale about self information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic has already been discussed up here. Would please stop recreating the same discussion? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Edtech source is not of high quality so I will remove it.Weatherextremes (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Who are you agreeing with? There is no consensus yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You said the quality is not high and also in past discussions on this source other editors have agreed. Weatherextremes (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

UoPeople collaborations corroborated by Financial Times article

Financial Times has published the following article

https://www.ft.com/content/f4b438c3-1e30-4a2c-bf2b-22824b6c6e66

I reckon this source could be used for various reasons such as students numbers, its MBA, the collaborations etc.

So along with the collaborations with Harvard Business School Online, Effat University and Long Island University now UoPeople has a new collaboration with McGill University. NYU, UC Berkeley and the University of Edinburgh being the earlier collaborations Weatherextremes (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Typical and usual sponsored article from UoPeople.edu. "At an initial glance, the UoPeople MBA resembles its competitors": actually it doesn't resemble other MBAs at all in the first place, because they have real MBA accreditations while UoPeople.edu doesn't. As for the alleged collaborations, we've been hearing the same stories for ten years now, which don't seem to have ever served any purpose other than putting a few not-entirely-authorized logos on UoPeople.edu homepage and writing temporary promotional articles. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any proof that UoPeople sponsored FT which is a credible source. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Full of MOS:PEACOCK terms: UoPeople.edu is even called "the pioneering education provider" at the beginning of the article, the highly controversial and disputed peer-to-peer online assessment system is defined as "the best thing" (?!?), it hides Israel as usual etc.
Anyway, there's nothing new, because UoPeople.edu has been publishing this stuff for more than ten years, on both "credible" and "non-credible" sources to use your phrasing. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 11:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand here is the link from Harvard University where UoPeople now officially and clearly appears on the collaborating schools section

https://online.hbs.edu/organizations/collaborating-colleges/

Weatherextremes (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Already discussed. Why do you keep recreating the same sections? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 11:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

First time we have confirmation from Harvard itself that UoPeople is a collaborating University and I believe this piece of information should go in the article as due per wiki policy. It is information important to students or people interested in the University Weatherextremes (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Funnily, that unaccredited online MBA is compared to the real AACSB-accredited MBA at Columbia University in New York City, a school that has more than 200 years of history and a solid network of MBA alumni. What does this have to do with the “University of the people”? Anyway, it seems they are not using the word “free” anymore (old articles didn’t mention that you actually had to pay). 37.160.33.182 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

New Section: Facilities

I merged the two sections about the office and subsidiary in Israel into a new Facilities section. I also incorporated information about the Pasadena office. This is based on the guidance of WP:UNIGUIDE. It will help reduce the undue weight given to this information and follow an established recommendation.

I retained but slightly updated the primary source references (IRS documents). I included three additional references, two for the Pasadena office and one for the subsidiary's registration.

Lastly, the old text seemed to imply that the subsidiary was a for-profit corporation. This does not seem to be the case. The company is a private company, but its registered purpose is "מטרות ציבוריות בלבד" which translates to "public purposes only." Based on my reading, this seems to mean that the corporation is a "public benefit company" which is a form of non-profit corporation in Israel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MasoYaki (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there are no "facilities". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Facility: Wikitionary (def. 3), Merriam-Webster (def. 4a), Cambridge (def. b1). An office, leased or owned, meets the threshold for being a facility. The use of facilities is more appropriate than other two suggestions on WP:UNIGUIDE which are campus and buildings. MasoYaki (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:Modulato Your recent edit claims 595 E Colorado Blvd, Suite 623 is "shared office space". Shared office space refers to either virtual offices or co-working spaces. It does not refer to leased office space. I could find no evidence that suite 623 is shared office space. The Loopnet source includes a PDF from Redstone Commercial Real Estate, the property's management company, which states, "Flexible suite layouts and high-quality tenant improvements." Neither virtual offices nor co-working spaces offer to renovate or permit renovation of suite layouts for customers. I can see no defensible reason for including "shared office space" in the article without reliable sources.
Also please stop removing the College Navigator source. This is the second time you have done so. The Pasadena location is clearly contentious for some strange reason, and this source provides a reliable, independent source for a section which is heavily dependent upon primary sources. This also allows readers to verify the specific location and address of the university.
Finally the template was added to the section specifically to highlight that primary sources are being heavily used and the section needs secondary sources. You can improve the article by providing secondary sources for the material. MasoYaki (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually removed College Navigator for failing verification. It does not say that University of the People has an office in Pasadena. That being said we shouldn’t be using loopnet for anything... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

College Navigator verifies the city and state. That's why I reverted. I am open to suggestions of improving the wording.

Modulato is the one who added the loopnet source, so I was simply using his source to demonstrate it's not a virutal office or co-working space. MasoYaki (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not restore sources which fail verification, if you continue to do so you will be blocked. We have nothing which says this is an office, we just have two sources which supply a mailing address. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording to read "University of the People maintains an address in Pasadena, California" and reincorporated the source. Surely that should not fail verification. MasoYaki (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes thats better, although I’m not sure that such a note about their address is due in the body (seems like an infobox thing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear we're making progress. I added the Facilities section to expand the article some. I also wanted to bring the scattered points about University of the People Education Ltd into on section.

How do you feel about the wording in the Education Ltd portion? It also uses the "maintains an office" wording. Should we change that as well especially since it uses primary only sources? MasoYaki (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes we should change that, the lead as well... Unless we can find a source saying where they have their offices. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you make those changes? I think it will be better received if you do so. MasoYaki (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I will do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed [1] and it says both that they had an office in Pasadena in 2018 and that the office was shared. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is from 2012 rather than 2018. They are likely talking about the former address at 225 S. Lake Ave, Suite 300 Pasadena, CA. That was a Davinci Virtual Office. This would make a good reference for the no campus component of the section though. MasoYaki (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes you are right about the date. I must have missed something, I don’t see Davinci Virtual Office mentioned anywhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your eyes are fine. That Davinci part wasn't in the article. I looked it up. [2] MasoYaki (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed New Section: Academics

WP:UNIGUIDE suggests an Academics section for university articles. This section would include information about accreditation, financial matters, number of degree programs offered, academic honors, the calendar system, admissions statistics, rankings, and the grading scheme. This would incorporate and replace the current "Accreditation and approval", "Rankings", and "Fees" sections. I want to gather some thoughts before I make the effort. MasoYaki (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Admission statistics" is 100%: you just have to pay $60. Useless.
"Rankings": the author of the only website that mentions University of the People already stated that it is the worst position in the ranking. Useless. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The items listed were taken from WP:UNIGUIDE in Academics/Academic profile item under the Article structure section.

The Academics item states that the Academics section should contain "information related to the academic environment". Admission statistics and rankings are appropriate content for that purpose.

The admission statistics item can also be expanded to mention that University of the People practices open admissions[3] or it is noncompetitive/not selective. These are common points of discussion about academic institutes in the US.[4][5]

The US News profile offers more options for expanding the Academic section. The section could include information about student retention rates, student to faculty ratio, full/part time enrollment, and student demographics. The items all contribute to "information related to the academic environment". It is also information which can be verified through US News. MasoYaki (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Simone Biles is a "student" at UoPeople: fake news!

The article claims that Simone Biles is a student at UoPeople, but does not cite any official sources (i.e. her website or official biography) or documents apart from some sponsored articles. Biles agreed to shoot some ads with UoPeople saying she is (or was) a "spokeswoman", but is not a student at UoPeople. Fake news. --37.160.22.166 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Simone Biles and her mother are both students of UoPeople - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_8nGr0ypk & https://twitter.com/AM2DM/status/958862447653175296 (BuzzFeed News AM to BM Program) --Sadsignal (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Self-produced YouTube promotional videos cannot be used as sources. Ditto for Twitter. --37.160.62.222 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they can be used, especially when it's an official account from news media. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent."
Also, University of the People still claims that Biles "is joining University of the People" https://simonebiles.uopeople.edu/, which is unlikely to say the least: after four years, is she still "joining"?!? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We have already discussed this. Check the Today source in the video section. She states clearly herself she is a student there Weatherextremes (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you deceived me (and others). I wrote a message to Simone Biles' official Facebook page and the reply was that, although she agreed to be a "spokeswoman", she is NOT currently studying with UoPeople, which is why she did not write it in her official website and biography. The article you cited is just one of many sponsored articles. --37.160.62.222 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

However, if you show an official document issued by Biles' press office stating that Simone Biles left UCLA to go to UoPeople, it means that this piece of information is true and can definitely be added. Other sponsored webpages are useless and potentially misleading. --37.160.62.222 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Today and Buzzfeed News are credible secondary sources. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. WP:NOR Your supposed personal message is not a credible source. WP:VERIFY --Sadsignal (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't use it as a "source" and I didn't add my private messages to the article. However, I still doubt your claims, since the articles (and videos!) may be sponsored, as it often happens with this online school. --37.160.115.124 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's the beginning of August. Most university students aren't in school anywhere on the first day of August. It might be nice to confirm (once the regular school year is underway again) that she's still a student, but there's no need to panic about the sources having be false at the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That's true for most schools in the world, except for... UoPeople, which, according to its website, has all its courses also in July and August https://www.uopeople.edu/become-student/academic-calendar/ (in this case, the first day of term would be in June) --37.160.115.124 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources and dates have been updated, see edit comment. --Sadsignal (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you tone it down with expressions about deception and so on. There are three sources that confirm she is a student and also a video where she states it herself. You continue to show bad faith with non constructive edits Weatherextremes (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Althought

@Black Kite: with regard to recent changes [6]. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch it reads that words such as "althought" should be avoided. If you consider that my changes are not appropriate, maybe you can give it a better text. Thanks for your time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• The text was fine in this case, unless you want to recast the whole sentence. Simply removing the "although" made the sentence ungrammatical English. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The article itself uses the word "although": "a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when [etc.]". It doesn't say it's forbidden. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again, new spam

A few years ago a couple of UoPeople.edu spammers insisted on adding https://webometrics.info to the article, claiming that UoPeople.edu was the XXXXth best "school" in the world. They didn't even understand that XXXX was a very low score; actually, it was the worst, as confirmed by email by Webometrics' author. But history repeats itself, and now we have another brand-new account that wants to add the rankings published by the commercial website https://www.niche.com which claim to be "better than the rest" (wow) and to be based on "over 180,000 college reviews from real (?) students—more college reviews than any other place on the internet. This gives a uniquely authentic and credible view into what students really think about their college.": sure, too bad anyone can write anything. On top of that, schools can pay to get a "better description": is this what "students really think about their college"? At the same time, the rankings claim to "only rely on the most trustworthy sources like the U.S. Department of Education", but what does the U.S. Department of Education have to do with the aforementioned 180,000 reviews? In short, pure spam. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Curiously, in this commercial website, University of the People ("verified/claimed page") claims to have 1,096 + 3,328 = 4,424 students, not 75,000! Where is the truth? If the page on niche.com is right, UoPeople.edu is lying; if UoPeople.edu is right, the page on niche.com is lying. It can be one or the other, but it can't be both. Therefore, if UoPeople.edu spammers now want to use niche.com (that has no scientific/academic credibility) as a source, the alleged number of students mentioned in this article should be changed from 75,390 to 4,424. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if you get "xyz" and the lowest score is "xyz", you got the worst score: elementary concept. If you play a tennis match, and you lose 6-0 6-0 6-0, you lost the match: it's ridiculous if you claim that "you finished second". But UoPeople spammers, after adding this ranking to the article, want to delete this piece of information because they didn't realize that talking about (real) rankings was counterproductive. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 15:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WASC unaccredited

Last year, a spammer came to this article to write that "University of the People is eligible for WASC accreditation". This statement, or maybe we should say "this ad", is ambiguous and potentially deceptive, because the truth is UoPeople.edu is WASC unaccredited. When it becomes accredited, this piece of information can be added. Anyway, the ad was removed (not by me). Today, another spammer (or maybe the same, go figure) basically rewrote the same thing. Why? Nobody cares if a website is "potentially accredited", "eligible for" yadda yadda yadda, that's just fluff. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn’t seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. As it stands much of the article is on the bleeding edge of OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I wanted to let everyone know that I reported the article for POV issues. Hopefully other experienced editors can help bring some sanity to this article. I will not be involved though because I'm going back to gymnastics. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Gymnastics? LOL. You only promoted "University of the People" in Simone Biles' article. Brand-new SPA. Pathetic. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What issues do you wish addressed?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we be a little bit more welcoming of newcomer, Wp:npa applies to us as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

UoPeople receives WASC Candidacy status

https://www.wscuc.org/institutions/university-people

As this piece of information is crucial for potential students and people interested in UoPeople I will be adding it to the article.

Huge news for UoPeople Weatherextremes (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Why?, they are only a candiate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean for any school candidacy to become a regionally accredited institution showcases a high level of academic achievements.

Why should we bury it?

Weatherextremes (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Does it? Surely it is being accredited that does, not asking for it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe it showcases the bare minimum of academic achievements, I don’t see a need to mention mere candidacy. Can you explain why you think its crucial? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If it were accredited, it should be added. The fact that "it could become accredited in the future" is irrelevant instead, not to say misleading, because it is unaccredited at the moment. Usual spam. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Link here [7] reads The institution has demonstrated that it meets all, or nearly all of the Standards of Accreditation at a minimum level and has a clear plan in place to meet the Standards at a substantial level of compliance for accreditation. Candidacy is limited to four years and is granted only when an institution can demonstrate that it is likely to become accredited during the four-year period

So when people visit the article after the 11 year long smear campaign from Giuseppe Macario they will be relieved to know that they were not scammed and that this is a credible institution. I am pretty sure a sizable amount of visitors are coming to read the article wondering if the fake news disseminated by Macario throughout the years have any bearing. Weatherextremes (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

So it is exactly as I said it was, we most certainly are not talking about a high level of academic achievement. Also who the heck is Giuseppe Macario? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think at this stage I will invoke wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

However it is an institution that is likely to receive accreditation according to the above statement. I notice that the WASC candidacy status is mentioned in the history section but I believe it should also be mentioned in the accreditation section. Also from what I have read so far, Macario is an Italian internet troll, who was rejected for an academic position at UoPeople and from then on he created a junk blog specifically aiming at defaming UoPeople. It was the junk source we had discussed in the past and we had decided against using it as a source for the article Weatherextremes (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Who Macario is or what he does is of no interest or concern to us. As he has been rejected as a source he is not relevant to this discussion. When (And if) they are accredited, fine. Until then this is trivial, as it is not even the bare minimum to be called accredited.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think his actions against UoPeople are relevant as to why it is important to have this piece of information in the accreditation section. I believe a lot of people have bought his fake news on UoPeople thus clearly indicating in the accreditation section the candidacy status I believe is exactly the opposite of trivial for these visitors.Weatherextremes (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Then we would need RS saying it is fake. If it is important RS would have noticed it, have they? Also until they are accredited, it tells us nothing, they could fall at the last hurdle.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As it is clear there is no consensus for inclusion of this it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is already not included in the accreditation section. Here some links I found on the italian troll

(Redacted)

Weatherextremes (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: Stop. This is harassment and doxing. Its so against WP:BLP and WP:TALK I don’t even know how to begin. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic Material

The enrollment count should be replaced with something from a secondary source.

The IRS sources should be removed and the material supported by them.

Most of the History section is promotional and needs to be removed.

The part about California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education should be removed.

Webometrics should be supplemented by the Niche source added before. EffortlessDisco (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

niche.com is a commercial website without any scientific credibility, where anyone can pay to get their "reputation" boosted. See #Here we go again, new spam. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The IRS sources are clearly WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH and should go. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, from the guidelines: "1. primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Also 3 "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.", that is what it is doing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

WASC Report on UoPeople

There are two documents on UoPeople's Candidacy from WASC that can be used as RS sources for the article. Both documents can be found here:[8] under Commision actions.

Some worthwhile data we can use for the article from the Team Report:

• From page 33: 1,068 personnel represented by 800 volunteer/honoraria faculty, 198 contractors, 59 compensated staff, and 11 volunteer staff of whom 9 are deans, vice presidents, and the president

This would also address the claim that there are no academics in UoPeople.

Also :

• From page 26: In 2020, UoPeople faculty research and professional development included 95 publications, 100 presentations, and 126 opportunities to develop educational materials

Weatherextremes (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Err, which of those two quotes says "academics"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word faculty makes it clear. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No it does not, please read wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine, we can leave it verbatim then. Still the point gets across that UoPeople has academics who teach Weatherextremes (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we leave what verbatum?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean we can use the same words without saying academics since you object on that.

Also from page 24 we can get extra info on the faculty members: It has a diverse personnel base given the list of countries from which faculty originated, the various interviews the team conducted with individuals from around the globe Weatherextremes (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure what you think this adds, and no we can't use it verbatim, as there may be copyright concerns. As you seemed to want it to address an issue it does not in fact address what is your new reason for wanting to use it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean we have been hearing (mostly from Modulato) that UoPeople does not have any academics. We can use the WASC Teams report as a RS for that and we can decide how we will word it. I don't see how there maybe copyright concerns. I mean the report is publicly provided in the WASC link. Weatherextremes (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It does not say they employ academics, so does not address what you want to address, so we can't use it for that reason. As to copyright, just because it is publically available does not mean it's not copyright.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It says there are faculty members and various personnel. We can use the numbers also to get the point across since the WASC report seems RS. I do not understand what is your objection exactly? Weatherextremes (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What? What point? that they employ people? Also one of the sources is very much a primary source with a clear COI (it's their letter). The other source does not say what you want it to say, it does not undermine or undo the credibility of the claim they do not employ academics (which I am hot even sure our article claims). So your reasons for wanting to use (either of them) are not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We can use the numbers from the WASC Teams report to fill in various entries of a standard Infobox University Weatherextremes (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, that is a better reason. OK I can see no reason why we can't say something like "Administrative staff 1,068 personnel".Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We could also say Academic staff 800 Weatherextremes (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No we cannot, as it does not say that, it does not say Academic staff. In fact, the only 800 number is "volunteer/honoraria faculty", not academic, unpaid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Conversely, it would be wp:or and not wp:v if we said Administrative staff when it says personnel. Also please stop writing in my talkpage. It is tiresome. I am sure we can work to find a way to include the numbers from the WASC report in the infobox Weatherextremes (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going with what we already have, in the infobox (which is sourced by the way), as we do not know who are what these staff do. But if "Personnel 1,068" makes you happy fine let's say that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Of which 800 we can say are volunteer faculty in the infobox. Which even that is a stretch since it is common knowledge that faculty refers to academic staff when we discuss about Universities. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? What use is it? So they have people who work for nothing, and? Its time for me to bail out and let others chip in, you have failed to make your case to me at least. Maybe others might be more convicned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They don't work for nothing. Faculty at UoPeople receive a honorarium, they are called volunteers for legal reasons. According to the WASC Teams report in page 10 it is specified that they receive 600 dollars per course and that it will increase to over 1600 dollars per course by 2023. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that "Faculty at UoPeople receive a honorarium, they are called volunteers for legal reasons.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.uopeople.edu/volunteer/ doesn't say that the alleged volunteers should be paid. Also, from the Oxford English dictionary: "volunteer: a person who does a job without being paid for it." https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/volunteer_1 If they are being paid, UoPeople.edu misleadingly uses the word "volunteer". —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I read it in Reddit ages ago. Any input on the WASC Team report as a RS source? It can easily replace the crappy IRS report Weatherextremes (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record, you can't claim the US Government is "crap". See https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/committed-to-open-government —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude, we can’t base anything on shit you read on "Reddit ages ago.” I’m with Slatersteven on this one, they have been more than reasonable with you and you need to listen. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude, fine its not even important if they are called volunteers for legal reasons . My argument is that we need to use the WASC Teams report as a RS. For some reason you are silent on that. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As a RS for what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For Faculty/Staff numbers for instance Weatherextremes (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Are we just going to repeat the discussion you had with Slatersteven? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

So you prefer a primary source such as the IRC report over a better source to describe the University's staff in the infobox? You are aware that the IRS source is wp:or and wp:synth? Weatherextremes (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats an odd comment to make given that its in the exact same category of sources as the WASC Team report which you want to use so any OR and SYNTH issues would remain unaddressed... In an ideal world we wouldn't be using either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Talking about WASC in this article is misleading. UoPeople.edu is not accredited by WASC, at least now. Also, UoPeople.edu already claims to be "fully accredited" (a phrase that may be deceptive, but that's another story). Assuming that's true, why should it be seeking accreditation? It's already "fully accredited", isn't it?
2. Where are all these "academics" that published scientific papers on international journals stating that they work at UoPeople.edu's Department of [put any subject here]? According to Google Scholar, the only person is Shai Reshef, who is not a "scholar" and happens to be the owner promoting his own website and business model (how ridiculous): https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22university+of+the+people%22 —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be deceptive if it said they have full regional accreditation. Now they have a full national accreditation, so i doubt fully accredited is misleading Weatherextremes (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"Full" means full, period. They don't say "fully nationally accredited" (which doesn't mean anything, by the way). They state "it's fully accredited", which is misleading as usual because if it were "fully accredited" they wouldn't be seeking accreditation. Plain and simple. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Last but not least, the alleged MBA is basically unaccredited because no business accrediting body recognize it as an "MBA", so the statement "it's fully accredited" is demonstrably false and deceptive. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated 990 and Administrative Staff

Hi, my name is Lindsay and I’m an employee of UoPeople. In the interest of providing the most accurate information for the page, I wanted to let you know that our 2019 IRS 990 form is now available here: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/264078735_202008_990_2021041417946967.pdf

As you’ll see, our administrative staff are 18 U.S. employees (page 1, line 5). There are an additional 38 employees in the middle east and north Africa (page 27, line 3). I hope this information helps the community create the most up-to-date resource possible. Thank you all for your work and attention to our page! Lindsay.UoPeople (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It will be updated soon. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 04:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I updated the staff (18+38=56). However, I didn't update the location to "Middle East" because it's the nth apparent attempt to hide "Israel" (documented in all the previous forms). It's like saying "I live on planet earth": yes, but where? "Earth" or "Middle East" is a bit too vague. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What about the above that claims over 1,000 staff?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The truth is the only reliable source is the IRS, which is why plenty of UoPeople reps hate it and want to remove it. In theory they could make false statements there too, but it would be a criminal offence. On the other hand, anywhere else, they can claim whatever they want: it is no accident that allegedly "reliable" sources such as the BBC, the Guardian etc. claim it to be "the university with no fees" or "the college that issues free degrees" on the basis of misleading/deceiving press releases. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, it seems they are whitewashing their public records (lest they appear on Wikipedia): for example, they deleted the sentence "the organization may also use for-profit subsidiaries abroad" — which doesn't mean they don't have for-profit subsidiaries anymore. They just deleted the sentence, that's it. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The numbers should update to what the form now says in conjunction with the WASC report. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because "over 1000 employees" is just what UoPeople.edu claimed there. If it were true, UoPeople woud have communicated the same number to the US government. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 01:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• From page 33 of the WASC report: 1,068 personnel represented by 800 volunteer/honoraria faculty, 198 contractors, 59 compensated staff, and 11 volunteer staff of whom 9 are deans, vice presidents, and the president

So yeah they report correctly in the WASC report 59 paid staff (I guess they hired 3 more paid staff from the time of the IRS report). The rest are volunteers Weatherextremes (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Those numbers are based on what UoPeople.edu claimed there: they are not verified by WASC or by anybody else. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 02:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging and the WASC Team Report mentions, "The UoPeople's subsidiary organization, the University of the People Education, which provides operational services to the UoPeople, has recently changed from a for-profit entity to a public benefit company" (p. 16-17).

The source already used in the article calls it "מטרות ציבוריות בלבד" which translates to public purposes only by Google.

https://www.checkid.co.il/company/יוניברסיטי-אוף-דה-פיפל-אדיוקיישן-בע~מ-(חל~צ)-514228139 The Wikipedia article in Hebrew on this type of company.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/חברה_לתועלת_הציבור There is also an English source from an Israeli law firm about such corporations.

https://lawoffice.org.il/en/registering-a-public-benefit-company/ It states, "In contrast, if a company is registered for public benefit, then it obviously must not act to bring profit to the founders and shareholders."

So, the IRS document only mentions University of the People Education Ltd. Is there any evidence of another subsidiary? Weatherextremes (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the IRS mentions "University of the People Education Ltd." (please note the "Ltd.") just because this is what University of the People declared in the US, and not because some people are inventing theories against UoPeople.edu. That being said, a private limited company is not a non-profit organization, by definition. What is more, it is still unclear why an organization, which claims to have nothing to do with Israel, relies on a company located in Tel Aviv. The owner's claim that this private limited company does not "bring profit to the founders and shareholders" is just an uncorroborated claim: he could have showed the financial statements, or at least the balance sheet, but he didn't. Or better yet, he could have eliminated the company located in Israel (or "in the Middle East", according to the latest update). —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 19:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Webometrics ratings

It is patently WP:SYNTH to state that this institution is not on the list. I'm sure we could find lots of lists that it's not on. Insisting on it's inclusion has the appearance of POV-pushing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The homepage lists two rankings and calls the latter "transparent ranking". Also, the former ranking recommends "see[ing] Transparent Ranking for additional info"; however, the organization is not on the list. But this is not "original synthesis" or "POV pushing": it is just what those webpages say, unless you deem the pages POV. That being said, in my opinion the whole section could be removed, considering that the presence of "University of the people" in these rankings or webpages is completely irrelevant. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 23:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the section, and agree that it's not very relevant for this kind of institution. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

U.S Department of Education says UoPeople is Preaccredited by WASC

So what do you make of this? [9]. Should we edit the article to reflect UoPeople is preaccredited by WASC? Weatherextremes (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)