Talk:Moodle

False redirection : ErfurtWiki is not Moodle

I noticed that ErfurtWiki is redirected to Moodle, but this is obviously an error, ErfurtWiki is a Public Domain wiki, so we have to fix it. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ErfurtWiki to reproduce the bug. I don't know how to fix it, so I let it to the wikipedia advanced users. 79.89.126.223 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ErfurtWiki. utcursch | talk 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Smart Work

I was just herded along with fellow academics into purchasing a subscription to something called smartwork. Its base interface looks, well it looks like the Moodle GUI I am familiar with with the words changed. Someone should look into this.

This page is a place to discuss the Moodle article, not a general forum for discussing the tool. Did you have any suggestions about the article? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Article Text

Original article sourced from a post to a Forum in the Moodle Community forums. The "It HAS EVERYTHING any e-learning platform has to have" is based in my 9 year experience with lots of e-learning platforms (including WebCT, Blackboard, Lotus Learning Space, Top Class,...) and more than 200 courses for more than 10,000 users from 26 countries. It is just open source and thus, free software, and nobody sells it. It is just a collaborative work we (more than 1,400 people from all over the World) are doing and want to share with anyone who wants to use it. I do not earn a single dollar or euro with its distribution (which of course is totally free). --Davidds 6:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added some notes about the interesting history of moodle's development, constructivism and pedagogy. Might revisit it later to polish up unless anybody else wants to have a go. --RolandG 08:11, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Added the software box. Starting to look much better now. --RolandG 12:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the name section

The "Origin of the Name" section is a collage of excerpts from a thread on moodle forum.--MrMac 15:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a problem? Sounds like a good primary source of information about the origin on the name. Perhaps if you have the link then you could add an external reference. --RolandG 08:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

After 2 years I answer :( No, it is not a problem... In fact it was me to add that bit into the article. I just wanted to mention where the information came from, so that other could verify its accuracy. :) MrMac 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Background section

Is there a reference for the following claim?

This research has strongly influenced the design of Moodle, providing pedagogical aspects missing from many other e-learning platforms.

I would be interesting to read about this if such a source exists (but I suspect that it may not and that this line should be removed or qualified in some way. What does anyone think? --Dwellings (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I expect the reference is actually in the PhD dissertation, since that's what "this research" refers to. However, since it's not generally available beyond a brief abstract, it's hard to know what is in the text. Moodle really was developed as part of this researcher's PhD work though, and it's not a stretch to think that a PhD project would rely on that research for design. This interview with Dougiamas that discusses the educational philosophy behind Moodle might shed some more light. I think in this case this would be a reliable source as an interview with the lead developer, even though it is self-published. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Dougiamas finish his PhD? I wasn't aware he had. I think Moodle's claims to social constuctivism are problematic. It is fine to say social constructivism inspired Moodle but saying that it is more constructivist or learner-centric than competing systems must be backed up by evidence. No such research exists to my knowledge but I if it does please add references. Until then I am citing this part of the article for biased opinion.--Dwellings (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right, it looks like the PhD is still in process. Technically though, we don't need research to back it up; we just need a reliable source where Moodle says that's what it does. As long as it's clear that this is what Moodle claims about itself, the veracity of the claim is up to the reader to determine. (And obviously, if some other reliable source contradicted that claim, we should include that for balance.) Reliable sources don't necessarily have to be published research though; I think you're conflating the two. Especially in this case, it's basically a matter of verifying that Moodle makes this claim for itself, not a matter of verifying whether the claim is true. We aren't here to judge whether it's true or not. The opening line of "The stated philosophy of Moodle..." does point to the idea that this is what they say, not anything empirically proven. How would you prove a philosophy anyway? That said, the section could use some better references than it has right now, just to make it clear who is making the claims. I agree the one sentence about more learner-generated content should reference a published comparison in some secondary source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious why somebody removed the entire background section. Have restored it. --RolandG 09:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems like an odd (and somewhat bitchy) tidbit.

Many teachers create e-learning content using Moodle, although almost inevitably the educational institution owns the copyright. Teachers create what is sometimes very valuable interactive and video content - content that can be licensed or sold around the world on discs and broadband - yet teachers often only get their standard "hourly rate" for content creation.

Have removed it for now, but perhaps it should go in a section about Moodle criticisms. --Matroidus 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's not a point about Moodle - it's a very general point about copyright and educational institutions. Not suitable for this article IMHO --mcld 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Work to NPOV this article

I took the freedom of removing some of the lines apparently edited by Arky as to me they where not comopliant with teh neutrality of the POV (the one saying that it's a better option than Microsoft products) or because in their phrasing they sounded advertising the line about "mooodle.com". While I believe the first concept should not be included in the Wikipedia, the second one could be reformulated in a more neutral way, pheraphs... (The link to moodle.com with a line of explanation is however still contained in the section "external links" --MrMac 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten for NPOV. I like Moodle, but this is Wikipedia, not moodle.org --Adbabypenguin 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done some work to NPOV the features section to address these concerns, perhaps others can contribute some more tweaks. Whilst I agree that there is a concern that the link to moodle.com could be viewed as advertising, removing it would be akin to removing a link to microsoft.com from the windows page. --RolandG 09:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made some changes to NPOV this and in my estimation, although some more copy-editing would be helpful, it now has a neutral tone. I removed some of the commercial links too as requested, and left only the links to the official sites (which itself lists approved third-party companies). --mcld 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Open University

Yes the Open University is developing with Moodle, but it will certainly not be used for the entire population of 200,000 students for many years to come.

LMS Market Share Statistics

• Higher education LMS market share: Moodle (54%), Blackboard+WebCT (45%), Sakai (.63%).

The link that this was gleaned from is misleading. --Liface 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Enrolment" vs "Enrollment"

The word "enrolment" appears a few times in this article, and occasionally people change one or more occurrences to "enrollment" (double L). While this is obviously not malicious behaviour (both spellings are acceptable according to many English dictionaries), I favour "enrolment" as a Moodle developer because it corresponds with the spelling used in Moodle itself. At the very least, the spelling used should be self-consistent throughout the article. If you wish to debate this please add a comment here :) --mcld 15:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We've actually had to hack ours at our university (US) because people kept getting confused and asking why "enrollment" was spelled wrong. --Liface 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to hack anything, just switch to using the US language pack (and the rest of us will continue using English). :-)

Moodle Screenshot

I think the screenshot needs updating, it has to be over 3 years old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.91.143 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Moodle-logo-med.gif

Image:Moodle-logo-med.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed --mcld 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

References?

This article appears to be original research. Please substantiate content by including references. Thanks. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was able to verify the primary claims by looking at http://moodle.org. 99.60.1.164 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"It has features. But newer versions have new features."?

This bit: "Moodle has many features expected from an e-learning platform. However newer developments have brought in new features." sounds rather strange, but my head is blank to re-write it... --SamuliK (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right. I've tried to improve it, feel free to change it more --mcld (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Advertising space should be paid for..."

When I got to this page, I thought I was on the Moodlepedia and that it was written by devotees of Moodle. Based on the text contained, I do not believe that is far from the truth. This is a major page; surely someone can NPOV it? It boggles my mind that such a well-known project can have such a simplistic Wikipedia entry. I think you will do Moodle a favour by elevating it to the same level as its rivals' entries; that is, having the idea of... 'balance'. 79.66.118.170 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you visit the article again, you'll notice it's been flagged for being written like advertising since January 2009. I doubt that flagging it NPOV will get anything more done in the article than the advert flag. The last discussion on how to make it more NPOV is old now, so let's bring it up again. What are the specific changes you want to see? Is your concern mostly that the article should have a section of criticism, or are you more worried about the tone in the features section etc.? Where do you want to start? Just jump right in and start making the fixes if it's wording here or there. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks great to me, especially compared with the articles on the lesser-featured competition. 99.60.1.164 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"opportunities for rich interaction". Rich interaction sounds like an advertisement. "Development is undertaken by a globally diffused network of commercial and non-commercial users, streamlined by the Moodle company based in Perth, Western Australia." Streamlined makes this sentence sound like an advertisement for the commercial arm of Moodle? Otherwise I think the NOPV of the article has improved. --Dwellings (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate use of Moodle

I would like to add some information about what may be an alternate and interesting use of Moodle.

It was used to build an Alternate Reality Game for promoting multilingualism in European students as part of a European Union funded education project called ARGuing for Multilingual motivation. What may also be significant, though not relevant at this stage, is that educators and universities in many countries are interested in also using the Moodle platform for a repeat of the project.

Would this be appropriate and if so were in the Moodle article should it be placed.

Websites of the project: http://www.arg-education.eu/ Website of the game - http://ictthatworks.net:8080/moodle/

Acerview54 (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable, third party sources that have written about this ARG, especially ones talking about how it uses Moodle differently from standard uses? The two links you have provided are primary sources and not enough to establish that this is notable enough to have attracted the attention of others. However, if multiple other sources exist about this, something brief could probably be included. I suspect, however, unless it's gotten more coverage since the article on this topic was deleted for lack of notability that it shouldn't be included here either. If you have the sources and would like to write a brief paragraph with references, you can post it here for review and we'll figure out if/where it belongs. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar Platforms

Suggest removing "Similar Platforms" section and replacing it with a link to List of learning management systems174.23.246.14 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I think you can get rid of the "Similar Platforms" section altogether. It doesn't really belong, and should probably be covered by one or a few "see also" links. 174.23.246.14 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is not necessary since most of the other listed LMSs don't have a similar section on their pages. --Mmn100 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)