Editing Table[edit source]
12/09/11 Honestly, I don't think I am that inept with computer stuff, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to add a new entry to the venting page without messing up all the tables. Isn't there an easier way to set this up, or could someone post more clear instructions (the step about where to insert the copied text is confusing to me since there are several iterations of the line that is supposed to precede the copied text). I'm guessing this is why there hasn't been much added to this page -- surely there is plenty to vent -- and I know I have also seen over the years how often people screw up the page.
A: The instuctions on the page work if you are in "Source" mode while editing (click the tab at the top of the edit window and you will see the page in "Source" and the formatting referred to in the instructions). Honestly, I'm not a big fan of these tables either because of formatting issues (I didn't set the pages up this way), but I also don't have the time to reformat all of this, frankly (someone else is welcome to, though, as long as posts aren't lost). On the Universities to fear page, most people seem to be able to edit the same type of tables with little trouble, so I'm going to copy the instructions there to the front of this page as well, hoping that will clarify how to edit this for everyone. Una74 15:57, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
What happened to some of the more recent posts?[edit source]
Just wondering what happened to some of the more recent posts. They were deleted by various search committees, as simple as that!
venting archive?[edit source]
Should older posts on this page be archived at some point? It's getting really huge, and scrolling through it to edit previewed posts takes my browser a while (maybe other people are fine).
Good suggestion. Venting from 2008-2010 now archived here: 2008 Venting, 2009 Venting, 2010 Venting. The front page now only includes 2011 vents so far. Hope this will make things more manageable. Una74 21:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
4/4/08 Did anyone see the "name-posting repartee" on the art history page under University of Virginia (Medieval)?
This isn't exactly a vent but a request to academic wiki admins to create a page on the site where the job ads are organized in terms of universities. I am not sure if it is as difficult a process as I imagine it is, but it's the kind of page that would be truly informative in the sense that wiki-ers would have a tangible idea of what kind of hiring across the humanities is taking place. Since the ads are currently sorted in terms of areas of specialization, I don't quite have a sense of how, say, University X compares in terms of increased/decreased hiring when seen in the contexts of different departments in that university, or other universities in the same research tier, and then across tiers. It would be great to hear what people think of the idea for having such a page; perhaps I am being lazy in wanting the statistics served on a platter! Having made such a request for what I think would be an improvement, I have to say I am a big fan of the wiki as its stands and, for all its pragmatic benefits, my own gratitude is for having a community to feel a part of!
A: This is an interesting idea, but I believe it might be more labor-intensive than you might think. I think, right now, admins. would not be able to take this on, but if you or some other users wanted to try to start and build such a page, administrators could and would provide support. Thanks for your support of the wiki. --Una74 22:17, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
Content relocated from main page 11/7/17[edit source]
|11-03-2017||This kind of slander has no place on the venting page, sheesh.|
Michael Berube is trolling adjuncts again. See comments.
Dear Inside Higher Ed (Scott Jasik),
I would like to know why my comment on this website was deleted. It's not appropriate to critique how the moderators favor an endowed professor? But it's OK for him to bully and insult others in the same comments? That's a poor professional practice on many levels.
This is the article and below it is my comment. You should reconsider what you've done and post the remarks.
Pointing out how Bérubé’s essay interprets “coach” may absolve him, and that the essay has apology in it, doesn’t make the reader stupid or malevolent, or worthy of being repeatedly insulted and intimidated. He also terms Freehdom friendo, a threatening and aggressive termed used to scare someone.
It looks like three distinct issues:
On #2, Berube is an asshole. He bullies and attacks ad hominem but only when the person is anonymous or way below him in power. That’s typical of bullies, characteristic of the dreadful combination he has... insecurity, power and narcissism. he's surrounded by people like Scott Jaschik, who facilitate his attacks. Just like Berube uses his stick to argue Paterno’s innocence, Jaschik uses his to allow Berube to attack others. The frat boys are a network. Are they all assholes, like Michael Berube? That’s a question for #3.
"It is indeed remarkable that Michael Bérubé, a full professor and former president of MLA, could be so immature. This page is surreal, like reading comments from a teenager. Take away the endowed full professor title and read these comments on Schuman and his tawdry attacks on others, he comes off not only as a troll but also a jerk and a bully. His patronizing and constant condescension toward others seems like a parody of a Full Professor mansplaining meme."
This is what sucks about the academy: people like Michael Berube. So learn this you little worthless peons like Rebecca Schuman, Berube may be quoted or paraphrase only in ways he deems acceptable. If you don’t, he will attack you. Yes, he bullies someone else’s right to open their mouth and say words. Why is it *only* people like him, and just like him in every way, who attack people in this way? (x3)