Universityranking watcher
QS Rankings Page edit
Sorry but would you please explain the reasons for reverting my changes on the QS World University Rankings page, as you did under the IP 219.252.219.113 ? I tabulated the methodological info. for a clearer presentation and to avoid redundant and unsourced claims, and updated the subject ranking categories. Further, it'll be better for the fluency if the commentary section is put under the methodology section. Your edits seem to have no construction on the page. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 09:16, 5 May 2015
- And, please, make use of the talk pages both here and the one for the QS page, where I started a new discussion section for this case. I'm sure others want to know your opinions as well. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:21, 5 May 2015
Hi I visited this qs rankings page several years ago and I saw the methodology on QS world univ rankings. Several months ago I came here again and could find the same information. However suddenly you came here and modified the page saying that "for a clearer presentation"
Right, i agree that your new modification is clear and easy to read but there is no more detailed information. You might think that former information that you eliminated has some subjective views. I agree that too However it's also true that QS ranking is controversial and most information was supported by sources with reliable links.
If you want to make the page clearer to see, why dont you just add your beautiful chart on top of the info, not erasing the former information. This way ppl can see the brief information and also see the detailed info.
6 May 2015
- Alright. So, you're concerning with the methodology section but it's a bit annoying to see the whole edition being reverted as there're many other improvements accomplished by lots of time. I fully understand your points on the subjectivity of such a ranking but I just thought that it's enough to summarize all the stuff in a tabular form without those outdated and redundant details (the "reliable link" was about the survey done in 2011). Reviews by some scholars on this ranking have already appeared in the reception and criticism parts. Wikipedia isn't a place to express personal opinions. I partly reverted your changes and retained the part you concerned with the most. I deleted the aggregation section subordinate to the methodological one since it's entirely unsourced and sounded like an advertisement. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 05:39, 6 May 2015
Hi biomedicinal I just saw your midified article and that was wonderful. Sincerely thak you. Since QS rankings' method is biased and only british university and some univ in HK and singapore have good scores there , some students tend to advocate QS ranking with out justifiable reasons. It migth be true that britain and univs in UK get advantages from world univ raking they made and even they are trying to control the rankings by lowering the ranks of some good univs in France, germany, japan and china. this way they can get lots of international students and made huge money. Many people out side UK can not tolerate this and we gotta do something to prevent them. Now QS rankings say there are 4 UK univ in world top 6 and no one think that this is true. this is way too much. Anyway i was very thankful and happy with your dedication to the page on QS ranking. 2015.05.08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.115.52.25 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, sorry but it belongs to the criticism part. Every ranking has its pros and cons. The methodology section should simply describe the methods this organization used to produce those results without any personal opinion. Please remember that not only should encyclopedia be objective and factual but also well-organized. You seem to have strong biases toward this ranking but why not let the fact speak for itself? We just need to describe the facts as Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising personal views. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 11:12, 8 May 2015
