Talk:AIESEC/Archive 1

To-do: Have a more reliable criticism section. If AIESEC really is about saving the world and being a strong NGO, surely it should be self aware of its weaknesses and be willing to improve them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.62.28 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Should there be an "alumni" section. I think this is important, to show what some AIESECers go on to do in their lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.79.238 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

I agree, since many of them have become very important agents of change in our current world, as heads of governments, induestries, etc. 66.231.237.245 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up some un-English turns of phrase. But more importantly: this needs to read more like a neutral description of AIESEC and less like its corporate statement or an advertisement. Compare with e.g. Oxfam. I hope recent edits achieve that.

What, exactly, justifies some random blogger's personal perspective on the organization for inclusion as a "Reference"? I didn't see any comments on the culture in the article, anyway. In any case, this seems like it is presenting rather a rather one-sided view of the organization. I'm not going to edit the page because I may be biased on this, but maybe a neutral observer can.

I think that something needs to be said about AIESEC culture - it's such a unique aspect of the organisation, although I'm not sure if I could write a completely NPOV version myself. --Alex Whittaker 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC) ---

you're right, Whittaker. And I don't understand how talking about culture can be POV itself. After all, presenting what AIESEC-ers have to say is no promotion; it is just the news reporting (eg. 'as Mark Smith from AIESEC in UK said, 'we are the biggest and most funny organization for students in the world' (it is a sample and not real speech); wikipedians take no stance about this, so it's 100% NPOV. While too little care for NPOV may lead Wikipedia to get biased, too much care for this may make us all fearful (even phobic) of talking of some subjects, which will be detrimental to our project, ideas, ideals and the most essential rules of this Encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critto (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 February 2007

Well, what exactly do you mean to change? If you compare it to General Electric it reads pretty much the same. History, Today, Subsidaries. And what besides history, core work and values could you put to better describe the organization in a neutral way? (Florian Schwarz, 21:35, 19 Feb 2006 (UTC))

>> Sorry Florian, but you're not exactly neutral.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Florian+Schwarz+aiesec&meta=

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:1h8k26ZX7P4J:ciwi.biz/hp/Florian_Schwarz/+Florian+Schwarz+aiesec&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

AIESEC has an extremly unique culture. Its culture is what keeps students interested in it all around the world. As a student-run and not-for-profit organization, it is highly difficult to motivate students. As a result, AIESEC relies on its culture and ideals.

Microsoft keeps its employees motivated with salaries. AIESEC with its culture.

You mean AIESEC with its "culture", presumably, i.e. its games and rituals and slogans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.22.187 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I've started adding some more content to this article, including a bit on the culture of AIESEC. If someone can point out exactly why there's an NPOV boilerplate at the top of the page then something could be done about it - I assume that someone may have taken exception to the list of core values looking like a promotion, however these are definitely taken very seriously within the organisation and belong here IMO. While I'd rather not remove the NPOV message myself (being a member means I probably am biased slightly towards the organisation) if no-one can give the specific reasons it's there then I'll remove it at some point.--Alex Whittaker 21:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AIESEC member fields of study

The second sentence in the "AIESEC Today" section lists AIESEC members as current students or recent graduates interested in "economics and management." This is incorrect, as AIESEC encompasses students of all disciplines now. I myself am an engineering student, and I know many other members who are involved in other disciplines. The sentence should probably end with "who are interested in some or all of the following: developing their professional and networking skills, going abroad, making new friends from around the world..." etc. Someone who is more experienced than me (8 months) please edit that part.--Prestinian 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've only been in AIESEC for 8 months as well, however it's indisputable that students from other fields join AIESEC so I changed that sentence. In my experience though, many students are from those areas, although if someone more experienced wants to edit the phrase again that's OK.--Alex Whittaker 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

While I feel that it is ideal to include criticisms of the organization, we need to feature only documented and verifiable criticisms. This entire section needs to be rewritten with criticisms cited.

For example:

AIESEC tends to bend in whatever direction the business world does, often without due consideration on the impact and deeper meaning for the organisation itself.

Of course, it is NOT true. One of the core values of AIESEC is to care for the society and to make _positive_ changes in it. Also, AIESEC is running a programme called CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), which is meant to keep some dagnerous business practices at bay or even to put an end to them.

Where on earth did someone come up with that?

exactly -- I don't know where. I think that some folks just *NEED TO* criticise for criticism itself.

FYI I am an alumni of this organization, so my views are those of both a former member and work exchange participant. SmartGuy 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

hey, and I've been a supporter of Polish AIESEC and it was a real fun: meeting interesting people, working and entertaining together. It was AIESEC that opened my mind on the cultural diversity; I have always been open-minded for all cultures and NOT phobic to any, and AIESEC confirmed my views in practice. Cheers, Critto

I agree that this article needs to be seriously reviewed. Not only for it's non-neutral POV, but also beacuse it remains very unclear what this group actually literally does.

"AIESEC corework actually consists of providing its members an integrated development experience internally known as "AIESEC Experience." It is realized by providing young people several learning and intercultural opportunities to develop their potential as individuals in order to empower them to have a positive impact on society."

What does this mean? What, specifically, is an example of a learning and intercultural opportunity that AIESEC has provided? In what specific ways can these experiences develop their potential as indviduals? I'm not arguing that the organization DOES NOT do this, but this entry does not give any specific examples of these opportunities, nor does it give us anything but vague summaries that seem very much to be a part of the AIESEC website.

well, it should be elaborated, of course; AIESEC runs a lot of programmes like CEED, ITEP (now it's possibly called YDP? anybody knows? it's long since I have been into the organization) that offer opportunities to exchange students between many countries (as trainees in the companies or working together in other Local Committees of AIESEC). Also, one can become familiar with work, business and organizational practices while volunteering in a LC (Local Committee) office. Also, the parties like Reception Weekends are being organized in Poland, where young guys and girls from around the world meet and play together. AIESEC does MUCH GOOD to unite young people around the world and open their minds Critto

this is true, there should be more information about AIESEC's exchange programs, since this is the core of what the organization does. 66.231.237.245 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the criticisms leveled against this organization deserve to be put on this page, so that we can have a fair and balanced view. I know next to nothing about this organization, and that has not been helped by this excessively vague entry. --Aylwinatrix 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

if only there were some sane and real criticism, then please go on. But I'm not sure where do you want to find them. Say what you want, but AIESEC is a *positive* organization that opposes violence, hatred and isolation of cultures. It's the organization that fosters *better understanding* among the people around the world using non-political means. Also, AIESEC commitees in some countries work as NGOs; for example, during the catastrohpic floods in Brasil all AIESECers in this country helped saving and rescuing people and helped the survivors (using the good organizational skills and contacts they have). Cheers, Critto

I briefly checked a few larger organization (for example, Exxon, General Electric, and Verizon) and there is not a section for criticisms. Is it wikipedia policy to list criticisms about organizations it is trying to objectively describe? How does one differentiate valid criticism from sour grapes? There are according to the article roughly 19000 people directly associated with the organization at any given moment. Chapium 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

exactly, criticisms are good when they are *founded*, not unfounded and coming from biases and superstitions. Critto

In response to your comment Chapium, no, none of the pages you mention have criticism sections. However, I do not feel that this AIESEC page IS an objective description. It reads way more like a testimonial without actually managing to discuss what this group actually does day to day. It's a very vague and advertisement-sounding entry. --Aylwinatrix

Aylwinatrix, I think we are discussing different topics. I am not contesting that this reads like an advertisement. However, the section I describe seems to be out of sync with the makeup other wikipedia articles. Chapium 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While AIESECers are writing articles about the organisation, I see no way a 'verifiable criticism' can possibly survive in the article mainpage. AIESECers on a whole are incredibly zealous about the organisation, and there is a tendency to hound out 'unbelievers' or those with criticisms. People leaving the organisation under these circumstances generally do not bother to contribute to articles on Wikipedia about AIESEC, and it is a rare Local Committee that conducts exit surveys. So the debates of AIESEC and general criticisms are unlikely to be heard or publicised in a 'verifiable manner'. Furthermore, active AIESECers are unlikely to seek out disgruntled members/alumni and collate their stories to see if there is a common thread. What is needed here is an independent assessment of the organisation's speculations about itself and the currents of thought that exist amongst its former members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.213.234 (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I support this criticism. There is a big gap between the feedback culture AIESEC claims to have and the way it deals with criticism and critics. In a Wikipedia article I would really focus on facts and write the article with someone who doesn't know anything about AIESEC in mind. Criticism should only be quoted if it has reached public awareness before (things that have been published widely in the media). I understand that people write their criticism here, because there is little room for criticism inside the organisation. But it shouldn't be in the article, let's use the discussion page. --129.13.186.1 (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, are criticism sections part of a lot of Wiki articles???? Just wondering... and if anyone aks... I have nothing but good things to say about the organization, even though I did not agree with the way it was run in my country when I was a member. That's why I think it no longer exists here, I don't know... Does anyone knows if AIESEC PTIC (Puerto Rico) is still working???? 66.231.237.245 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

After giving this further thought, I believe allowing criticisms would be a positive thing. However, it will be difficult to differentiate organization-wide criticism from isolated cases with specific members of the organization. Chapium 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The content of the criticisms section at this moment is not supported by the sources referenced. Given that some of the claims are rather strong and perhaps even inflammatory, the content should be removed unless proper sources can be provided. papageno 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some reference should be made to the brainwashing thing. It has not captured mass media but you can find a couple of couples of blogs where alumni like myself criticize them for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.47.243 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More International AIESEC practices

I am from the US, and it is no secret that we currently do things differently from AIESEC internationally (though we are working to change that!) Since we know so little about general AIESEC actions, I'd REALLY like to see more stuff like what was put up about @XP. That was so helpful. Can someone knowledgeable please put up detailed descriptions and diagrams for @2010, Strategic Triangle, PBoXes, and the like? Then this article would really start to get rolling! Prestinian 18:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER: Please, excuse me if this way of putting on a reply is somehow wrong in terms of behaving on Wikipedia, I didn't meant to do it intentionally, I'm quite new to Wiki. But if it's ok, it's cool :) What I want to say, that Wikipedia is not the place to put all the information e.g. about strategic triangle, PBoXes or whatever, as it'd completely useless and difficult to understand for non-aiesecers. For such infos, talk with Executive Board in Your Committee, or people from MC, their responsibility is to keep members informed about whole @ stuff. You can also find MANY useful information on aiesec.net, and to be honest, it should be the first tool You should use to keep Yourself up-to-date (principles: Take An Active Role, Increase Capacity, does it sounds familiar...? :> ). Greetings from LC Szczecin in Poland. Alxa, 22:38 CET, 29 April 2006

International MC Members

(Jul-12-2006) I think the section listing AIESEC International MC members by name and categorised by country, is pointless and should be removed. First, it is irrelevant to 99% of the readers of the article. Second, it is incomplete, and would be huge if it ever was completed. Make a seperate entry called "AIESEC International MC members" or lets take it out of here hey? Unless someone replies with a good reason why to keep it as it is, I will remove it in a few days (By Tom G)

I think that AIESEC structures should be better described; Local Commitees, Member Commitees (also called National Commitees in the past, and possibly still today in some countries) and the International Committee. The fully democratic, three-level organization. Ah, there are also Initiative Groups -- the "LCs-to-be", that means, LCs that are newly forming. Cheers, Critto

Tom G I moved your comment down here and gave it a heading. Also you can sign your comments by adding for tildes "~" to the end.

I agree that the list does not really belong here. If someone can provide justification then please do so, otherwise it should go. SmartGuy 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

agree. I removed it. --203.173.248.102 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

forgot to login. The page edit and that comment was by me. --vierstein^talk|Contrib 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Prod removed

I removed the delete tag. It doesn't seem appropriate to suddenly nominate an article for deletion after it has been on WP for the amount of years this one has. The content hasn't changed qualitatively since 2002 and a lot of work has been done by a lot of people. Do not-for-profit organizations count in the prohibition against advertising anyway? I thought a commercial product had to be involved. AIESEC is certainly a notable organization, so that shouldn't be a concern either. Richardjames444 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that longstanding articles are exempt from prodding, nor do I see that non-profit organizations are exempt from the prohibition against advertising. At the very least, I'm tagging it for having the tone of advertising ("AIESEC looks to create tomorrow's leaders, today" -- honestly!). User:Angr 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that longstanding article are exempt from deletion, but in my opinion at least they should be nominated for afd rather than prod'd. Since so many people have worked on the article, it seems disrespectful to me to be so unilateral, although on the other hand of course it is bold- because there are no sacred cows in Wikipedia. YOu're right that it needs a tonal adjustment in places, but perhaps no more than that. Richardjames444 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no hints of 'advertising', this is one of the most neutral explanations of AIESEC that I've seen. Something as broad and intangible as this organization is difficult to put into words, and unlike most other articles here on WP there aren't many neutral or scholarly publications that examine the organization. We have to rely on the 'advertisements' from AIESEC International itself as source material -- perhaps that is where those not familiar with the organization feel the advertising aspect comes from? Nevertheless, I don't see anyone criticizing the articles on Christianity or other religions as advertising even though most of the information comes from Christians and the bible, et cetera. Having said all of this, I do believe, however, that some of the more technical aspects of AIESEC could be moved into separate headings, and more focus could be made on AIESEC's cultural role. For example, I think that it is unnecessary to have information about size, and distribution in the introduction. I'm going to assume that most of the objectionable material that began this tagging has been removed for now. If anyone sees anything questionable please be sure to restate the problems, and add a tag to the article. Perditor 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Internet

I'm not really sure how relevant it is to discuss various nuances about how the organization operates in a wikipedia article. I think one thing that the quote below misses is why the virtual communities exist.

Key things to keep:

• AIESEC uses OpenACS to manage its global network of volunteers and supporters. This is necessary becuase meeting in person is not always viable in an organization that is so spread out. (locations in over 90 countries)
• AIESEC uses a searchable online database to find suitable traineeships for students within its network.
• The purpose of sending students on traineeships is to increase interaction between cultures while helping them advance their careers.

"Away from conferences, members frequently use AIESEC's extensive intranet (AIESEC.net) for communication, which is notable for being the world's largest OpenACS installation. In addition to hosting hundreds of virtual communities, suitably trained members can use the online database (known as "Insight XP") to match potential trainees with work placements all over the world. This greatly streamlines the work of exchange, since before the introduction of this system in the 1990's, members were required to meet and exchange physical forms."

QUESTIONS

• What, tangibly, has AIESEC done (either directly or indirectly) to improve the world, or the ways in which businesses operate in its fifty years or so of existence? Considering the huge amount of people-hours involved in organising traineeships (not to mention the large quantities of money and energy), where is the broader social impact that AIESEC 'Change Agents' should have wrought by now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.213.234 (talk • contribs)

Well, my friend. it has done a lot. Especifically, and most important, it gives its members and the students who participate in their exchange programs, an unique perspective in entreperneurship, economy, globalization and cultural exhange, just to mention a few. And also greatly helps the communities where CRS programs and Development Exchange Programs take place. And someone, please add a sections on important AIESEC Alumni... Perhaps a Board Member in AI.66.231.237.245 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- Having been a member of AIESEC for over half a year now, I think the criticism whether AIESEC is really trying to change the world or make a positive impact is justified. I am honestly shocked what I have heard from inside the organisation on how companies for internships are chosen and how much pressure is exercised on members to contribute. Okay, I see that every organisation needs to have cooperative members. But the way how AIESEC forces its members to work endless hours to get one of the well-desired internships is simply not acceptable. Sorry, if I have to say that, but often I have felt reminded that some of the practices are similar to those of a sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.227.31 (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• What are the specifications of the equipment used to keep this "World's largest OpenACS install" and the matchmaking running? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.213.234 (talk • contribs)

Also, why is AIESEC always in "over"x countries with "over" y members doing "over" z exchanges a year? I'd like to see some actual numbers. Considering AIESEC styles itself a multinational company and turns over a vast amount of cash each year, this sort of information should be available to members of the org., if not the public who gets nothing but the spiel. 219.90.173.89 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why AIESEC does that is three-fold: First, rounding down to even numbers. Second, the number changes every 6 months or so, and it'd be expensive (and wasteful) to replace the marketing materials that often. Third, AIESEC International wants to prevent people from making up numbers/providing inconsistent numbers to externals. (I am an AIESEC alumni, but I believe this rationale would be publicly viewable on the branding site..) Dunro (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Countries

Small point, but the inclusion of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in 'Europe' is a bit of a falsehood, they should be in Asia.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.76.229 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 December 2006

On that point the reason why they'd be included in Europe is because they would have been founder by AIESEC in Europe, and because of this alot of their support would come from Europe etc. so functionally they would be considered as part of the Europe block withing AIESEC circles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.213.234 (talk • contribs)

Current and Former Executive Boards

Since I started to be a regular searcher of information at Wikipedia and I,m also a very Involved aAlumnus of Aiesec is my opinion in this discussion that we should add lists of MC Members and also Local Committe Executives due to the fact that they are the core of the networking of Alumni and already part of the HISTORY of Aiesec.

I,m pretty sure there is an space in Wikipedia that doesnt violate the terms and Conditions of a Public Editable Encyclopedia and I,m also grateful because I have received feedback from a user who assertively warned me about waht is and waht is not Wikipedia.

However, I think that the MAIN article AIESEC is still incomplete by far. There is a lot of facts and figures that should be included not only stuff related to the Internal/Organisational Processes but about the people who performed an active and relevant role nationally or locally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andresfelipevelasquezhenao (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Its good to see the list of Alumni, but if you click on the wikipedia link for those people, AIESEC is nowhere to be found in their page. (With the exception of César Gaviria and Martti Ahtisaari) - it would be much better if we could add AIESEC in those wiki's. 122.164.59.251 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Hari, India

Rewrite

This article needs to be completely rewritten, and I am tagging it as such. I'm an AIESEC alum and even I find this article to be ridiculous in many ways.

I will leave this section for editors to discuss things to be done. To start:

1. Source the history section
2. give a better description of the organization's purpose and functions
3. a comprehensive, verifiable, and balanced criticism section
4. get rid of those "what leaders have said about AIESEC" quotes, or integrate the quotes into appropriate places in the article

Those are my suggestions, as a starting point. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - I removed the other maintenance tags, since theoretically a rewrite would resolve the advertisement/lack of sourcing/POV/etc. problems. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for this, I've been trying to clean it up a little myself, but the frequent edits by vandals and what can only be described as non-wikipedians, make this difficult. I think that it may be something in the nature of the organisation that makes an encyclopedic view of it impossible. Perhaps it is because anyone who gets suitably close to the organisation simply falls in love with it, or becomes completely disinterested so that an objective view is impossible. I don't know, I hope this article receives more attention and is cleaned up at least. --vierstein^talk|Contrib

better now, this is at least a start in its current form. The article looks much cleaner without all of the edit warring going on. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone at 87.194.62.28 keeps adding in a very POV criticism section, which is nothing more than a point/counterpoint argument. Folks, it's pretty simple: we need a criticism section, but the information must be unbiased and SOURCED. Having this "discussion" with myself and vierstein here has gotten a bit old. If anyone wants to add criticisms, and can do so within the guidelines of WP:NPOV and WP:RS then by all means do so! Otherwise I'm going to keep reverting any unsubstantiated or unsourced claim, be it positive or negative. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Article has been semi-protected, please discuss changes here if you are unable to edit the article. NOTE - this is not an invitiation to game the system by creating an account solely to edit this article. So doing would bring up the possibility of full-protection and disruption blocks. Deiz talk 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

I just finished editing the article to make it more neutral. Despite the fact that the article lacks a "Criticism" section, it should not by any means contain pronouns such as 'We' or possessive pronouns such as 'Our.' This usually occurs when an AIESEC member edits the article according to his/her own set of beliefs regarding the organization.

Please pay attention to this small issue.

--Cordatus (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

the world's largest student organization

you could write that aiesec is the the world's largest student organization see: http://www.aiesec.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.49.241 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the article info of 25000 members, it's not even close to IEEE student membership of over 80000.--CaioMarcos (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The usual terminology used to be student-run organization --Theemyrs (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

As a hard core enforcer of WP:CITE and zealot of WP:NOR, I just ran a Kärcher pressure cleaner through the article. I cleaned it up and also kindly wish to remind that Wikipedia is neither a place for advertising nor a place where you may verbatim copy official website info here. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:advert added. 118.90.18.175 (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alumni

Is it usefull to list @ Alumnis who are so unkown that they do not have their own site on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.227 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL IS AIESIC! after reading your website, this site and talking to a ton of memebers I STILL HAVE NO IDEA !!!!!

here are some points

a. the only real thing it seems to do is send ppl on under paid internships and some random parties

b. most ppl ARE NOT STUDENTS !!!but ppl who seem to want to carry college life forward a few years

c. it doesnt seem to do anything tangable AT ALL!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.156.37 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)