Talk:Ignite!

Someone called EGGS (who apparently doesn't believe in edit summaries) slapped on an "advert" box and NPOV box minutes after I started this article, while I was still in the process of editing it. The paragraph that reads like an advert was cut and pasted from the Neil Bush page, and I am still working on verifying its sources and rewriting it for NPOV. I've removed this paragraph in the meantime. wikipediatrix 00:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this news item: http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3742329.html 04:28, 25 March 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.134.30 (talk • contribs)

Editorial Claims

It bothers me that so much of this article is being based on slanted editorial rather than actual facts. If an editorial is going to be cited, it should be clearly noted that it is an opinion, and the opposing opinions should also be presented. (several opposing viewpoints were published as a result of the Houston Chronicle's editorial, many of which are obviously more fact based.)70.113.208.174 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the language. It bothers me that the "slanted editorial" text was a relatively small part of the article, yet you say "so much of this article is being based" on that editorial. It also bothers me that you think that letters to the editor, which can obviously come from people with major interests in Ignite! (company officials, PR firm, relatives, investors, etc.) should be taken seriously. They certainly do not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements. John Broughton 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only "obvious" letters where people have a clear interest such as Neil Bush and Tom Delaganis and they are fully disclosed. Are you saying the other writers shouldn't be taken seriously, or only those that are critical of the company and/or a member of the Bush family?

I'd like to see a supportable statement that the Ignite program isn't effective, instead of just snobbish dismissal.

Like the VP said, the name "Bush" works against them, but teachers still buy the product.70.113.208.174 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general with 70.113.208.174. As a result, I have better clarified the types of professional experience with which both "sides" quoted possess. I have to say I don't see what place the Chronicle editorial kerfluffle has here, anyway, as part of a serious discussion of Ignite's MI-based approach. It might be better classified as "media criticisms" rather than the shoddy-worksmanship-sounding "quality of software" title. I don't think anyone is claiming the *quality* is a problem. MI, on the other hand, is somewhat controversial, but that's not really specific to Ignite's use of that approach.--67.101.67.215 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to the editor

It is unacceptable to put text from a letter to the editor into a wikipedia article, UNLESS the person is an obvious expert. A teacher or parent or even a school superintendent is NOT an expert. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. That is exactly what a letter to the editor is. Wikipedia articles aren't the place for "he said, she said" discussions, when the "he" and "she" are non-notable individuals who are not eyewitnesses to unique events.

I've left in the article the words from letters by Neil Bush and the VP of the company - those are clearly noteworthy. John Broughton 13:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your characterization of that content, and I'm afraid you are missing the point of the reliable sources guidelines. In this case, the source is the Houston Chronicle, not the particular teacher that the Chronicle published. A letter to the editor is essentially an op-ed-in-minature. Every paper has their own particular standards, but in general these letters are not published verbatim, but edited for clarity and to remove any clearly factually incorrect assertions. If the Chroncile editorial board kerfluffle is to be mentioned at all, then the couterpoints which that same source - the Chroncile - has published must be included as well in order to show both POVs. Neither side is being quoted as an expert, they are being quoted as the sides in the kerfluffle, that kerfluffle being related to the subject of the article.

You do have my agreement that the whole thing is a "he said, she said" which does not belong at all. But that *includes* the editorial. I say it should all go. I'll leave that decision for you to come around to it you since you put it in originally. In the meantime, the article must include an accurate description of what the Chronicle has published re. this kerfluffle, rather than just half of it.--67.101.67.215 13:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, "in general [that is, at most newspapers] these letters are edited ... to remove any clearly factually incorrect assertions" is NOT the same as "independent fact-checking" that is required by wikipedia policy. I think you're the one missing the point.

Wikipedia has a variety of ways to resolve differences: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you are not agreeable to removing the text from the teacher's letter to the editor (a link would be nice), then I would like you to pick one a process that you are willing to abide by, to settle this matter. John Broughton 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate that you are confusing one thing with another re. reliable sources. This article is documenting the *kerfluffle* related to Ignite's product. You are confusing that with the citing of the content as a source re. the actual pedagogic value of the Ignite courseware. As a historical record of the debate the Chronicle is indeed a reliable, independently fact-checked source. I don't see how you can say the facts are not adequately checked: certainly the Chronicle can vouch that their editorial board wrote what they wrote. They can similarly can independently vouch that the teacher wrote what she wrote (letters don't get published without first making contact with the letter writer). Your argument would be valid if the article were instead quoting some other internet site that simply reported "the Chronicle board said X and the teacher said Y."

Beyond trying to help you get your head around the reliable sources stuff, I must also reiterate: we are documenting a debate started and held on the Chronicle's editorial pages. To document only one of the two main POVs expressed in that debate would be odd. While I still don't see the point for documenting this at all, perhaps the controversy belongs in its own daughter article. Would that make you more comfortable with giving it what I would consider the properly balanced magnitude of coverage?

Additionally, I have located a link for this letter. With all the Chroncile links added recently, I had not noticed that the original poster neglected to include one. --67.101.67.215 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the entire paragraph that I wanted:

The effectiveness of the learning programs continues to be questioned. An August 2006 editorial in the Houston Chronicle said of the approach: "Its reliance on jingles, cartoons and other snippets seems more likely to reinforce [the limitation of short attention spans of children] than to nourish intellect and learning."

That paragraph already encapsulates "give-and-take" - it conceded that there are certainly people out there who think that the learning programs work. Nor do I have an objection to adding text from the Deliganis response, which I was unaware of at the time, saying (essentially) "yes it does work". (You only put the Deliganis response in the "Promotional activities by Bush family" section.) Such an addition would provide even more give-and-take, while meeting wikipedia standards.

Let me see if I can be perfectly clear: it IS newsworthy when an editorial board questions the effectiveness of the product of a major business, and such editorials DO meet wikipedia criteria for reputable sources. It is NOT newsworthy when non-notable individuals who have experience with the product write letters to the editor saying the product works. People object to editorials all the time. Moreover, you don't want to put in the article "A teacher wrote in to object" - you want to put in THE TEACHER'S WORDS.

It may or may not be fair, but if a thousand people write something in a blog, or in a newspaper, that fact (yes, it's a fact) is STILL not includable in wikipedia articles, per wikipedia policy, unless a reputable source actually mentions it.

So, again: either remove mention of that letter to the editor (feel free to add the response by N. Bush, or Deliganis, in its place), or select a method of dispute resolution, or I will select a method, because you in no way have convinced me. John Broughton 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An fyi - you are confusing me with someone else re. the Deliganis stuff.

I think you may be conflating your arguments about newsworthiness with those about reliable sources. As I believe I've said, I find the entire debate non-worthy of inclusion. I don't "want to put in" anything. But again, if it is included, from a reliable source, at a quoation level, then it shouldn't be fractional. The Chronicle is a reliable source of both the editorial board's opinion and the education professional's/customer's opinion. The editor who originally added it was in no way out of line with the reliable sources standards for documenting the kerfluffle. Do you dispute any of what I said here?:

As a historical record of the debate the Chronicle is indeed a reliable, independently fact-checked source. I don't see how you can say the facts are not adequately checked: certainly the Chronicle can vouch that their editorial board wrote what they wrote. They can similarly can independently vouch that the teacher wrote what she wrote (letters don't get published without first making contact with the letter writer).

--67.101.67.215 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Broughton is confused. *I* was the one who started editing the one-sided editorial content. I also agree that the whole Chronicle issue should be discarded. In my opinion, the original Chronicle editorial was misguided. Given the reader responses, and especially those questioning the Chronicle's journalistic practices, I'm obviously not alone.

As for John Broughton's other comments, the editors at the Chronicle are not experts and are not qualified to pass judgement on instructional methods, let alone determine what might be a violation of school district policy. Teachers and superintendants are clearly more the experts in this area than journalists.

The Chronicle is clearly throwing mud, but is frustrated that it isn't sticking. There's really no story here, folks. Sorry. If you want to document the mud throwing, fine, but let both sides be represented.

And what of this "program continues to be questioned"? By whom? I see no evidence that there has been questioning of Ignite's product in the past. You seem to be implying there is some ongoing issue. Would you care to support your statement?

Let's also lighten up on the loose throwing around of Wikipedia policies. An expert on Wikipedia policies should know that letters to the editor are not "self publishing". The only way to get self-published in a reputable paper is to buy a paid advertisement.

Finally, when I first read the Chronicle editorial, I got the distinct impression that they were using Wikipedia as a source...now that's bad. 70.113.208.174 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for spending so much time and energy on what, after some reflection, are some relatively minor points. I've done just some tiny tweakings of the wording (for example, "responded" rather than "rebutted") that I hope are acceptable; please feel free to tweak them further without having to explain here before (or after), and hopefully that will wrap up this phase of changes to the article. John Broughton 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "Experts" and Fixing Broken Links

Just fix the links and stick with the facts. Is that so hard? Also, please refrain from ad hominim attacks just because you don't agree with someone's viewpoint. Perhaps one shouldn't assume that anonymous posts from the same IP are from the same person, too. Many locations (e.g. public wireless access points) only have one IP. Several people active on the subject just might be in the same coffee house.