Talk:Randy Elliot Bennett

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Can someone identify examples of sensationalism or inappropriate citations in this article so that I can improve the article's quality? It's not clear how the Wiki articles on these topics cited in the warning banner apply. Thanks! Xianzai1635 (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user: DGG, Can you please identify examples of sensationalism or inappropriate citations in this article so that I can improve the article's quality? It's not clear how the Wiki articles on these topics cited in the warning banner apply. I'd really like to make it better. Thanks!!! (talk)

Date of birth is needed.--109.252.100.41 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the publications and overall article tone

[edit]

I removed many of the publications and summaries in this diff with an edit summary of "excised various WP:UNDUE summaries of some of bennets publications, none of which utilized secondary sources, and all of which bordered on WP:OR". This edit was undone by @144.81.85.10 in this diff without edit summary, so per the bold, revert, discuss cycle lets discuss and come to a consensus.

I do believe that my edit was good, and that the various summaries of the publications were undue, especially given the lack of secondary coverage or of any indication of their particular notability.

I am also concerned with the tone of the article, it reads as a kind of academic advert, a collection of accomplishments irrespective of their value to an encyclopedic article, of which the overreliance of primary sources contributes to. To quote from WP:NOTPROMO "Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." and much of the article, publication section included, reads as something more befitting a personal website or other professional-oriented social media, especially prior to my various removals and reworks[1][2][3][4][5]

In short: I believe the publications I removed were WP:UNDUE and contributed to a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone and invite others to help build consensus on if they should be kept or removed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the IP @144.81.85.10 resolves to the Educational Testing Service, Bennett's place of work. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah that makes some sense, thanks for the heads up. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the publications cited were described factually. They are part of the canon produced by this individual who has been recognized with multiple awards from the major organizations in his field, including the American Educational Research Association, the National Academy of Education, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. The fact that this is a highly recognized scholar means that his publications are fair game for inclusion, particularly when they center on topics of critical currency, such as fairness and equity in educational testing.
Your removal of text indicated that the removal was motivated by a lack of sources external to the publications being described. External sources have added for some of those removals. In other cases where no external sources could be located, the removals were preserved.
The additions were not intended to be promotional in any way. They were intended to be factual descriptions of the writing of an individual who is regarded as important in his field of scholarship, writings that take on added importance in the current political context. Also note that Educational Testing Service is not promoted in the article or in the additions in question.
Thanks for your consideration of the motivations behind the additions. 144.81.85.10 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was prepared to get thoroughly lost in the trees, but the first one I looked at immediately reminded me of the forest.
  • I made WP:BOLD removals[6] to address concerns over promotional tone and undue weight. You disagreed with some of the the removals and partially reverted.[7]
  • I opened a discussion[8] and was informed shortly after by another user that you (@144.81.85.10) made your revert from an IP address provisioned for ETS, of whom the article's subject is "the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation". Upon learning this I left a WP:COI notice on your talk page[9] which you quickly replied to, denying any conflict of interest.[10]
  • Your following article edit's[11] very first added source "Best practices for constructed-response scoring" is, although not indicated in article, a wholly ETS work, and not just that, it was added to support the content addition "ideas recognized by others as key to implementing and evaluating automated scoring." You, editing from an ETS IP, added an ETS work as a citation to assert that Bennett's work is recognized by others when those others could comfortably be called Bennett's colleagues at ETS!
Your assertion above[12] "also note that Educational Testing Service is not promoted in the article or in the additions in question" also falls flat in the face of concerns about promotional tone when the second sentence of the current article is about Bennett's position at ETS.
For these reasons I am considering a spade to be a spade, declaring you have a conflict of interest, and reverting your most recent edit. Please read WP:COI in full. Should you wish to make further content edits, then per WP:COIEDIT: WP:DISCLOSE and make an WP:EDITREQ where another editor (not me) will review your request before inclusion. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration. I respect your decision to revert my most recent edit. I would suggest that the statement that Bennett is the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair at ETS is a fact, not an attempt at promotion. If you feel that fact is promotional and that its removal would improve the objectivity of the article, please do so.
I would also ask you to consider whether including as external citations work coming from the same organization is necessarily inappropriate. While I understand your concern, I'm not sure it's fair to assume that the citation in question occurred simply because the citing authors work at the same organization, rather than because those authors believed the article had contributed something worth citing, regardless of where they were employed.
Thanks again. 144.81.85.10 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is a fact, not an attempt at promotion", agreed, but that wasn't the specific point I was making. In addressing the statement: "also note that Educational Testing Service is not promoted in the article or in the additions in question", consider that if the article is perceived as promotional, and the article's subject is prominently said to be a chairperson at ETS, that the promotional tone would then also reflect upon ETS.
"I would also ask you to consider whether including as external citations work coming from the same organization is necessarily inappropriate." In this instance? Inappropriate. Always? No, so long as such an inclusion was strongly informed by neutrality and reliable source policies. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On "citations work coming from the same organization", see WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is another aspect here. "He is the "Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation"" might be "fact". But per WP:PROPORTION, should it be in the WP:LEAD, or in the article at all? The goal of a WP-article about Randy Elliot Bennett is to be, almost exclusively, a summary of WP:RS independent of Randy Elliot Bennett. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]