Talk:Blackboard Learn

Softball Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Softball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Softball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftballWikipedia:WikiProject SoftballTemplate:WikiProject SoftballSoftball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This page appears scrubbed of past controversies. Considering the incentive for doing so, it was probably done by someone working for the company. --Agreed, the criticism section seemed well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.166.42 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles nelson reilly (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Charles Nelson Reilly[reply]

I'm a newbie here, can somebody add redirect to this article from "blackboard lms" query and make soft infobox with current version, license and so on? Amalitsky (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any record of the scrubbed content, or a way to reinstate it?

As a graduate student and a teacher, I use blackboard at my university, and everyone has complaints about it. I was surprised then to check out this page and see no note of criticism. Now I know why, but im not happy about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avian Obscurities (talk • contribs) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

No references to show that this is notable. Delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.54.107 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia's principles, no organization or product is notable simply because it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.240.111 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's notable for how long it has lasted in the market, or how it's gobbled up several competitors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbergeron (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

Blackboard is slow, unreliable, ancient, and very poor software. There needs to be a criticism section on it. Doshindude (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Blackboard has been in the news lately for its unreliability, a mention of this has been added to the "controversy" section. —comment added by Charles nelson reilly (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In May 2009 Blackboard Learn purchased the privately held Angel Learning, inc. I was using Angel to deliver online courses and found the transition to Blackboard to be a step backward. Even today Blackboard feels as though it was written in the 1980s. It cannot read a Microsoft Word doc. Its testing structure is poor, with no direct way to use a picture in a matching question. Professor Leakey (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the features read like a product brochure. this posting should be edited, or deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.87.197 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackboard's unreliability at an institution can be traced to one thing and one thing only: its configuration by local system administrators. You can buy all of the top notch building supplies in the world, but if you don't have someone knowledgeable enough to put it all together properly, you will likely end up with an poorly-built house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmorkin (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of criticism published in the media, this section should be expanded. There has also been criticism of e-learning in general. Unfortunately, universities are being forced into these systems, which do a poor job of serving the students and often backfire as costs spiral. (the premise of lowering costs doesn't always pan out) Danski14^(talk) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small chance that the claim that Blackboard is unreliable is due to poor local system administration. However, the fact remains that it is extremely slow and often unreliable even using the company's hosting, whose systems are provided by the company. So it's inarguably their fault. Additionally, the UI to Blackboard is quite poor and the price is high, all of which are some of the reasons Canvas is taking over their market share. --Paultparker (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is valid (and as a Bb power-user and sysad for over 15 years, I've done a LOT of complaining about the system), but it needs to be specific. Comments such as "it's slow and unreliable" or "the UI is poor" are a) subjective, b) unhelpfully comparative (slow, poor, etc. *compared to what*?) and are therefore about as useful as "I don't like it." IOW, they are meaningless. I'll add some that I consider actually valid. Cjbergeron (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Coopman article is just a screed against "power structures" in traditional classrooms, using Bb as a whipping boy because the system supports the way that most faculty teach. It's invalid as a criticism of the product IMO. Indeed, MOST of the criticism section dates back five years or more. The system has changed A LOT in those five years. Cjbergeron (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A former colleague said that most of the professors at his undergraduate computer science department hated the design and functionality of Blackboard so much that most of them reimplemented it independently. Does anyone have a reliable source for this?

— FlashSheridan (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

major revert[edit]

I reverted the article back to a state before the edits of User:75.222.33.252. After trying to undo some deletions, the references were all messed up. I'll be going back and adding some of the more relevant content. aprock (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd tone, especially when compared to the Moodle article[edit]

This article seems to be particularly negative and the suggestion of how sites have moved to Moodle in the final section seems very odd.

I think product pages should simply describe the product and its maker and leave positive or negative remarks out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.56.58 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason Blackboard should be excluded from criticism. A criticism section is included in most pages and many software pages. If many users feel it should be criticized, which is evident from the above, why should Wikipedia censor that? -- Paultparker (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blackboard Learn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091216081612/http://www.islamicaweb.com:80/forums/education-careers/12299-official-i-freaking-hate-blackboard-thread.html to http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/education-careers/12299-official-i-freaking-hate-blackboard-thread.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added section on Ultra and SaaS[edit]

I've added a section on Ultra and SaaS as this represents most new development work in Learn and it's a substantial change in the user and administrative experiences. I've tried to keep it NPOV. I'm not a Blackboard employee, but I am an administrator/developer for a university that uses Blackboard Learn SaaS so I'm way too intimately familiar with it. WidjettyOneTwo (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WidjettyOneTwo, I edited this, as it was WP:UNDUE coverage to an obscure technical aspect, given the scope of the article. I'm a professor who has used BB for 15 years, and a computer programmer, and don't think what you added is relevant, the way you have framed it. What you have written is true, and is relevant to a small number of server admins, but honestly belongs in a technical manual. I believe it needs to be rewritten to be accessible and useful to the general audience that comes to this page. Theredproject (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree. I've edited out the more technical parts of it, but I do think it's worth mentioning Ultra and the new products that have been added with it - it's different enough that many of our academics think that Ultra and Original are two completely separate products. WidjettyOneTwo (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]