Talk:Computational thinking

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agendreau24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Computational Thinking Resources

This section needs to be updated and could include many more resources Agendreau24 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I don't know what's going on but the lead sentence (definition of CT) was changed by someone to a book by Wang (50 citations) instead of the previous definition by Wing (10.000 citations) or Aho (750 citations). I edited out Wang's and replaced with Aho's (just because Wing in her definition quotes Aho's). Why anyone would want to define it by Wang's book makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.90.95 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes article

New York Times article could be used to expand/source. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computational thinking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831030051/http://thinkct.losrios.edu/ to http://thinkct.losrios.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic Blocking

Hi IceWelder. The information about the abstraction/automation/analysis is legitimate and NOT Citation spam NOR original work. This is peer reviewed, cited and multi author research. Is there some strange agenda here or some general academic mobbing or hostility? Is Wikipedia no longer interested in quality content? This article is full of issues that need urgent fixing. What is the source of this new hostility. Lets please focus onto content and quality. To all the Wiki editors, please, if you are not familiar with the academic world read this Wikipedia:Relationships_with_academic_editors Thank you for helping.

11:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA14:4581:6B00:7969:5A7A:BDEF:C686 (talk)

Consider also the following guidelines:

WP:REFSPAM:

Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. ... Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, ...

WP:SELFCITE:

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. ... When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

Adding "another characterization" based on your research does not appear to contribute to the already poor quality of the article. You are edit-warring and repeatedly assume bad faith in other users' edits. Neither contributes to making the article objectively better or more comprehensive. An admin blocked your account for performing promotional edits. As a topical expert, please do as the essay you cite recommends: Work with an established Wikipedian knowledgeable in the topic. IceWelder [✉] 12:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

CT is a movement, really

I liked what di Sessa said in Kafai's interview some time ago: CT should be seen as a movement above all. Maybe someone could add that

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-022-00754-w 91.157.90.158 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Computer practice

5 categories of computational thinking 41.121.20.145 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)