Talk:Esyllabus

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 27 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Conflict of Interest?

The article appears to have been created by Dr. Andreas Schneider himself. --RichardVeryard 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE Correct: and this by itself does not constitute a conflict of interest: Wikipedia: “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.”

If anyone could be constructive in his/her critique: I do certainly welcome more resources on the eSyllabus to be included. Please, if you can, help to improve this contribution. If this critique is, however, a declaration of “turf war” between disciplines (see category issues) I find this critique problematic for the spirit of Wikipedia.

It is great to have a forum of open exchange, and tagging should not be an instrument to confuse the reader. Please remove the COI tag on eSyllabus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschneid (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge that you are the inventor of this technology. You have submitted an article to Wikipedia that states the "advantages" of this technology without mentioning any disadvantages or costs. How can this possibly be regarded as neutral or objective? COI is not intended to confuse the reader, it is intended to warn the reader that the author may not be sufficiently independent and objective. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Furthermore, you have provided no independent references to your invention. The article therefore fails to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia:Notability If you are the only person in the world who thinks this subject warrants a Wikipedia article, then this is a further indicator that there is a conflict of interest involved. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

As far as I can tell, this article is not about Sociology but about an educational technology that happens to have been created by a sociologist in a sociology department. I am therefore removing the sociological categories - including Category:Communication and Information Technology, which has been defined as a branch of sociology and should therefore be merged with the existing categories such as Category:Science and technology studies. --RichardVeryard 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Concerning the eSyllabus, there are social and technological aspects. Within the discipline of sociology there is a section “Communication and Information Technology.” I was careful with this categorization. So I used the definition of the section by the American Sociological Association http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/sections/overview The current chair of this section is: Keith N. Hampton, University of Pennsylvania

Currently teaching a graduate course in ePublishing at the University of Paris, I am not unfamiliar with the interdisciplinary implications of the eSyllabus.There is no doubt that other categories are equally relevant, and I think it is an especially good idea to merge the article with the category “Science and technology studies.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschneid (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well indeed, there are social and technological "aspects" of practically any technology, and there are sociologists who study these aspects, but that doesn't mean that every piece of technology belongs under sociology. I do not accept your claim that other categories are "equally relevant". As for the "interdisciplinary implications" of the eSyllabus, you would need to discuss these elsewhere, preferably in a peer-reviewed sociology journal, before you would be permitted to reference these in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research The article you have written merely describes eSyllabus as a piece of educational technology, therefore this is how it should be categorized, and that only if the article overcomes the COI and notability objections.

As for your suggestion that my critique is a manifestation of turf wars, this is entirely unwarranted. My critique is not based on defending any particular discipline or intellectual territory, merely on defending the quality and integrity of Wikipedia. --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Standard?

A quick Google search indicates that there are several education agencies and suppliers offering something called "eSyllabus". For example, Queensland Government, Columbia College, WebGrade. Are these all based on the same fundamental concept, or are they completely different?

And how does eSyllabus relate to standards such as SCORM? --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Dr Schneider has removed the COI, POV and notability tags. I am reinstating these tags, and adding a delete tag for good measure. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Schneider persists in reinstating this page. I still think there is a strong element of self-promotion in his efforts. --RichardVeryard (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reconstructed

As I am aware both of the importance of this, of the availability of multiple sources discussing and giving instructions for using them,. and the need for a nPOV article not affected by COI, I have reverted the redirection of this article, and restored the earlier discussions page. I shall be working on it over the next week or so, but it is not trivial to search a concept like this. DGG (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]