Talk:Edupunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please don't delete this article[edit]

Please don't delete this article. I am trying to understand what this thing is all about and the wikipedia definition is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.205.177 (talkcontribs) 17:46, 31 May 2008

I'm afraid that a neologism that is so recent can't possibly satisfy the WP:N wikipedia notability guidelines for creating articles. See also the explanations at WP:NEO Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If the blog author had its own article then it would be possible to add this neologism as part of his article. Please notice that articles on peopler must meet the WP:PEOPLE wikipedia notability guideline on people, so please don't try to create the person's article just to add this term unless you can prove that he is notable.
Anyways, don't worry. If the term keeps getting more notable, it will eventually get it's very own article on wikipedia, or at least a place on an article about modern educational methods --Enric Naval (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Note -- second post attempt after edit conflict -- It's an interesting term and it is clear that the page was created in good faith but Wikipedia also has notability standards which should be followed. It's entirely possible that, given time and increased exposure, the term will merit entry. However, the term is less than a week old and simply is not demonstrably notable. There aren't even reliable sources to cite as yet. If makes the Journal of Higher Education and some AP coverage, it may well warrant inclusion. But for now I concur with the nomination for deletion. And one other note -- when contributing to a talk page, it's considered good form to add four tildes like ~~~~ which will automatically create a signature for your comment. Hope that clears things up. WWB (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry to agree that this article should indeed be deleted. I do, however, hope that the term (which I like a lot) catches on, and so can become the subject of an article in the future. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't this article become part of Punk_subculture or maybe Punk_ideologies, or Experiential_education? There are lots of people with affinity to "Punk" culture in education, with affinity to a "DIY" and subversive approach to living. Education and "Punk" both exist, and people are starting to talk about the convergence of these two "things". Rather than delete, why not put emerging phenomenon into context? I can understand not wanting to have a full page about something that seems to you to be "brand new". Yet, I fail to see why this should not be part of a collection of human knowledge in some way (especially in reference to Punk_subculture and/or Experiential_education. --Samrose (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that several of the sections under Punk subculture have their own articles in addition to their mention in that main article (Punk visual art, Punk dance, and Punk literature, for example). I'm generally an inclusionist, so my vote would be to keep the article and let the references grow. The Chronicle and Guardian references should be enough to keep it. If that isn't possible though, I could see it as part of the Punk subculture article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this term looks like very interesting, I also hope that it catches on --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually HAS already been written about in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a very reputable source. I really think the article should remain. It's also being defined and commented upon by reputable bloggers. Sue Maberry (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They better be very reputable bloggers, if they have to demonstrate notability for this term :) If it's blogged about by leading people on the educational field, it might postpone the deletion of the article for a few months, giving time for the term to gain notability. (because people will just apply the ignore all rules policy in order to save content that has a fair chance of actually improving the enciclopedy)
A mutual friend (of mine and Jgroom's) told me tonight that the term has been spreading like wildfire among the edublogger community. It would be nice to have that documented in the article. (And well done, Jgroom!) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'll tag it a stub that needs to be improved --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Enric, I have to say it is pretty cool of you to negotiate around this article. I totally understand it is a neologism, and I'm not sure if it will ultimately deserve an article. But it is awesome to see the Wikipedia admins and editors willing and ready to negotiate and work with a group of folks to see what happens. Thanks! Jgroom (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, man :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I love the term, and want there to be an article, but I have to admit that there's not really any definition that has reached any sort of consensus in the edublogger community. I found an article -- punk ideologies -- which seems to somewhat fit with what edupunk is so far ... but I'm a little worried that "edupunk" is such a new term that by adding that wikilink I may influence the final definition of the term. --216.62.101.13 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on punk ideologies is a fascinating overview--a "rough generalization"--of a movement that appears so varied and riven with contradiction as to be nearly meaningless, aside perhaps from the idea of living outside the "mainstream." I honor much of the spirit and admire many of the motives behind the idea of "edupunk," but I doubt a useful definition will emerge. It's also ironic that the Chronicle's article on this term is cited as a reason to continue the article; many edubloggers regularly criticize the Chronicle for the low quality of its coverage of teaching and learning technologies, and information technologies generally. Gardner Campbell (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As if I wasn't already nervous making about a potentially drastic, un-cited addition to the article, Jim has to go draw attention to it. ;) Would it be correct for the article to start with "Edupunk is a memetic ideology"? 'Ideology' describes what the concept is made up of, and 'meme' describes how it spread...so edupunk can be both, right? --216.62.101.13 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Mimetic ideology"....wow, now there is a moment for the Hegelian dialectic to transcend through the struggle to bring things to another level of thinking through new terms :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgroom (talkcontribs) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to Ignore all rules -- if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This has always been a rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talkcontribs) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BlackBoard[edit]

I inserted a reference to Blackboard as one of the companies appropiating the work of others, as per the Glass Bees source. Can you check that I got the reference right? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

Isn't Wikipedia itself an example of edupunk?Sue Maberry (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some might say yes, but other edupunks might point to the fact that Wikipedia does have administrators. While highly participatory, Wikipedia isn't anarchic.Gcampbel (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How can we not mention jbmurray's Murder, Madness, and Mayhem? What a powerful example. Jgroom (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, publish an analysis of how it applies to Edupunk so we can link it from the article, even if it's a link to a blog --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Enric, I already have :) Murder, Mayhem , Madness is so EDUPUNK. Jgroom (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Added to the article --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have said a number of times now, you rule the EDUPUNK school :) Jgroom (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is SO Edupunk, since there is anarchy at the core... aka Ignore all rules --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, if an article makes it into Wikipedia, with all the tendentious deletionists running the place, is it really punk? Punk seeking legitimacy? Hmmm, maybe not... --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moodle[edit]

Does Moodle really fit the definition of edupunk? If anything, it might refer to DIY teaching, but I don't see it as fitting the DIY learning concepts as defined by edupunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K1v1n (talkcontribs) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it does. I know a fairly large number of educators who've bailed out of their institutional LMS and started running their own Moodle servers on third-party hosting services. That seems to mesh well with the "DIY spirit" mentioned in the article, and also with the "rejection of efforts by government and corporate interests in using emerging technologies to exercise control over education, its processes, and its stakeholders" part. 76.227.79.48 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone who knows the guys at Moodle would contact them about defining themselves as "edupunk" somewhere on their website --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I think this is where we have to admit that there simply isn't enough written about edupunk for this article to be feasible. We can't help but put original research into the article because there just aren't enough sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. I think we should merge and re-direct with some other article. That way, if more sources emerge later, the article can be easily brought back. --216.62.101.13 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We could actually cite some of the bigger blogs as research in this case; that wouldn't constitute original research. From the policy on self-published sources in the Verifiability policy:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Stephen Downes and David Warlick have both been published in other third-party educational sources, and a search on Google Scholar for their names returns multiple hits. I think their blogs are fair game for this article. Has Jim Groom published anything in a journal or other source Wikipedia would normally consider reliable? I'm not as familiar with his work and wasn't able to find anything obviously his on Google Scholar.
For the record, I don't have anything published in journals, just my blog. Jgroom (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I thought I might be missing something. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
While I do have some stuff published in journals, isn't this a rather odd criterion for something as anarchic as edupunk? It's sort of like saying that a punk band doesn't have any cred until it gets signed to a major label. :-) 76.227.79.48 (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is, and Stephen Downes has argued that Wikipedia shouldn't even bother trying to vet sources by traditional measures of authority. I understand that point philosophically, but that isn't what Wikipedia is. It would be chaos to say that any blogger could be used as a source on, say, evolution. So no original research and the restrictions on self-published sources help keep the chaos at a manageable level. Wikipedia, in this respect, is more about using the traditional tools of research in an innovative way than about developing a new system of research and content development. If you want the article on Wikipedia, I think you have to work within the framework that exists here. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and not an experiment in democracy or anarchy or anything else. It doesn't matter what the topic is; these guidelines are relevant because it's on Wikipedia and not somewhere else. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Or to put this another way: unlike the suggestion above, Wikipedia is not particularly "EduPUNK." In fact, Wikipedia values respectability very much indeed. (Discuss among yourselves as to whether that's a good or bad thing. Personally, I don't think it's particularly bad.) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest is also a concern here. Generally, an expert in the field can cite their own work if it's published in a reliable source and maintains NPOV. For example, David Warlick could cite one of his own books. However, saying he could cite his own blog is a stretch; I think it would be safer for someone else to cite it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"poster boy" photography[edit]

Anyone can contact the author of this photo or this other one and get it licensed under a license compatible with wikipedia? That would be CC 3.0 Attribution, CC 3.0 Attribution-Share alike, "for non-commercial and/or educational purposes", GFDL, public domain, or simply giving permission to use on wikipedia.

Also, I can't currently upload it to Commons for using on other wikipedia projects because of the non-commercial part on the chosen CC license. Simply changing it to 2.0 nc-sa "Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic" would do the trick. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Enric, both of these images are already licensed under CC with a 2.0 nc-sa"Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic." It wouldn't be very EDUPUNK if they weren't  :) Jgroom (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, the first picture you listed is CC-By, without the NC restriction. That one's OK, so I'll add it to the article. Jim, the non-commercial restriction you have on the second image (the hand closeup) means it can't be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia contents have to allow allow commercial use. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WeisheitSuchen. Thanks for that tip, I changed the second one as well to straight CC. Jgroom (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks :) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Internet Meme[edit]

This is clearly a meme. No one agrees what it means, its nice that a group of educators are so fond of wikipedia but it shouldnt be used for the purpose of promoting a new website and group. Even in this talk page this becomes clear, the poster boy says "Hey Enric, both of these images are already licensed under CC with a 2.0 nc-sa"Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic." It wouldn't be very EDUPUNK if they weren't " then goes on to change the copyright of his own image to include it in this article, this is not ideology, this is a marketing campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.34.87 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I quoth the author:

"So, it is of particular interest to me that this recent meme, I’ll name it: EDUPUNK, has been defined in its fledgling (and most probably short-lived) Wikipedia article as an ideology (...) What is interesting to me is that this definition of EDUPUNK as an ideology has seemingly won out over meme. In fact, the wikipedia article never referred to it as a meme (...) e, it was first described as a term (...) (and then) changed to ideology. (...) So, what we have here is something that is quite different from the scientific definition of a meme grafted upon this social phenomenon (...) apparently because we can identify a set of “varied social and political beliefs” in punk. A pluralistic vision of ideologies that are premised on social struggle and political visions. (...) So running with this idea, EDUPUNK is an ideology because it names a social and political struggle over the future of teaching and learning and it implies a series of beliefs, however varied, uncertain, and ill-defined" [1]

... and then he goes and says that he likes that the article gets changed back to saying meme because it shows how wikipedia works or something :P . Bad Jim, bad, what is this thing of encouraging edit wars on articles :)
so, it's an ideology because it has a set of beliefs, and it's not an internet meme even it spreads as one because those are a "catchphrase or concept" and this is more than just a catchphrase and it encompasses more than just a concept. I didn't revert because I don't want to cause an edit war and I'd rather discuss it first. Comments? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if it started as a meme, I think it's an ideology now (as has been implied in another discussion on this page about including this in the list of "punk ideologies"). It's an emerging ideology, and therefore not entirely uniform; at some point in the future, maybe there would be different "flavors" of edupunk the way there are different sub-types of punk ideology. Clearly either "meme" or "ideology" has sources that can be cited. I think Enric's compromise of "ideology spread like a meme" is good for the first paragraph.
What if we added another section about the debate between whether this is actually an ideology or not? Connectivism includes a criticism section that mentions the argument that it isn't actually a learning theory. Rather than pretending that the views on this are uniform, why not add a section that talks about the opposing viewpoints? The problem will be filling that out with reliable sources. The Guardian article calls it a "buzzword"; that should be mentioned if we go this route.
Would a separate section be a sufficient compromise to gain consensus? Are there enough reliable sources to fill it out (no more citations from Jim for this--just looking at published authors to add credibility to the article so it doesn't get deleted.) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
For the moment it's just a controversy among editors on wikipedia for the wording on an article, that's not notable enough for the article to mention anything (or half the articles here would be full of mentions of that sort of controversy). I saw no source discussing the meme-ideology thing except for Jim Groom's post and maybe some sarcastic post on some blog of some persons who didn't like the idea of edupunk. We should wait until/if this starts getting debated in the education community in published reliable sources (at least wait until the personal blog of a person considered both notable and reliable mentions it).
You can, however, try to make a separate section anyways, using Jim Groom's article, and basing yourself loosely on the blogs on this google search, taking always into account that they are neither authorative nor reliable sources. That section can explain why it should be considered either a meme or an ideology, without mentioning any smallish internal unimportant storm-on-a-teapot controversy on wikipedia :D --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the reliable sources, I don't see it called either a meme or an ideology. As I noted earlier, the Guardian article calls it a "buzzword." The Chronicle calls it an "approach to teaching." Stephen Downes avoids calling it either a meme or ideology, although he leans more towards ideology in how he talks about it on Half an Hour. David Warlick calls it a term. As an alternative to either meme or ideology, what about "approach to teaching"? I'm trying to find something that will allow us to reach consensus. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's called like that on a source, and the other sources don't call it either a meme or an ideology, then you can just add it with a reference to the source you used "Edupunk is an approach to teaching". Then we can discuss how to continue the sentence to mention "internet meme" and "ideology", or make first a separete section explaining why it should be considered so each of these things, before edit warring on the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article, so we should first make a section with the long justifications, and then make a summary of it on the lead.
"It can be considered an internet meme because of x and x. It can be considered an ideology (or a set of ideologies because of x and x", and then on the lead you only need to say "It's considered an internet meme and an ideology". That should cut down the disputes becuase we would be orienting the discussion towards explaining facts.
Also, I would like to hear what the IP has to say about "approach to teaching". --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


This is an attempt to give credence to a very spurious and doubtful teaching methodology, or little practical credence value or future. It should be deleted in the interests of truth, the term is blatant promotion of a self appointed authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.108.168 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be your opinion that edupunk is a "spruious and doubtful teaching methodology," but without providing a source your edits fall under original research. Criticisms of this approach to teaching are welcome, as long as you cite a source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Find sources: "Edupunk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Heh, zero on all acounts. The term still needs a bit more of time before it can creep into that level of sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

australian site[edit]

http://edupunk.com.au/. Very regretably, I'm afraid that this link fails Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, it's not a unique resource for an encyclopedic featured article, it's original research, it's a personal web by a non-recognized authority (posts aren't even signed, actually, so it's difficult to say).

Also, I throw in the usual comment about wikipedia is not a directory of links also known as WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so there is no obligation to include any particular link that relates to the article subject, unless the article needs it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an external link, it's a reference to a self-published source, which is acceptable per WP:SPS for the purposes for which we are using it. Whether or not the line it references belongs in the article is another matter. For a stub article on an emerging concept, I lean towards inclusion. Skomorokh 10:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, damn, you are right, I should have used WP:RS instead.
Well, let's look at the whole sentence/reference thing. I can see a few problems:
  • the sentence really looks like the text for a external links section, that's what confused me, it's not a sentence stating a fact relevant to the article like "the term has spread in this and that way" with a reference to verify that fact. It's just not a real part of the article. I think that's the biggest problem with difference.
  • the reference is not actually verifying the sentence, since it doesn't say anywhere that it's written by australian educators.
  • as a personal page that is either unsigned or not signed by a recognized authority, it also fails WP:RS. As per WP:SPS, it says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but this source does not seem to be published by an estabished expert (or at least, no established expert has signed it). actually, the "about" page links to a personal web [2] which would be a way better link to explain how edupunk has spread :) As for recognized expert, Leslie Madsen-Brooks doesn't seem to have published on reliable third-party publications, but, meh, she has a Ph.D. in cultural studies, which for an emergent topic it's quite good :D and she is reporting what other sources say, it would be different if the whole post was only her own opinion on the term.
  • for edupunk.com.au being a source for how edupunk spread, it doesn't actually explain how it spread, and the blog from Leslie (who appears to be the author) doesn't even mention it despite mentioning a dozen other websites. Also, I'll be hard pressed to say that it contains any encyclopedic content.
I would say to use Leslie's post instead of that web, and change the sentence so that it's stating a fact relevant to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Educause interview[edit]

In 15th January 2009 James Groom was interviewed in EDUCAUSE Now! about Edupunk,[3] they quote this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language sources[edit]

Unsure if we can use them here in the English wikipedia, but here they go anyways:

  • From an organization of the Contemporanian Center of Cultures of Barcelona, a conference session in Edupunk, explaining its origin from the term "educación expandida" (expanded education) http://www.cccb.org/icionline/?p=1271, February 2010
  • A freely downloable book from the University of Barcelona, (just click in "¡Descárgatelo aquí!" and then on "Descargar libro") "Geekonomía. Un radar para producir en el postdigitalismo" (Col·lecció Transmedia XXI. Laboratori de Mitjans Interactius / Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona. Barcelona), escrito por Hugo Pardo Kuklinski, graduado de la Carrera de Ciencias de la Comunicación de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, profesor en la Universidad de Vic (Barcelona) y profesor visitante en la Universidad de Stanford. this blog review says that it's explained in chapter 4 among other concepts. The University has a diagram of the concepts in the book[4] (it's in one of the orange nodes linked to the number 4, in the one called "Universidad Siglo XX"). Published at end of 2009 or start of 2010.

English conferences[edit]

Capitalized?[edit]

Is the word edupunk a proper noun? The article is inconsistent in whether it's capitalized or not. --zenohockey (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this article been voted for deletion yet? I've seen tons of articles on subjects actually interesting and relevant get deleted in a few weeks, why does this meaningless self promotion survive for a year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.208.145 (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am not knowledgeable enough about education generally to have an informed opinion on the article itself, I would suggest the fact that it has survived and generated so much controversy shows that it is not meaningless. Wikipedia should attempt to display to debate over what it is and the merits of it. A good example would be: why does it say 2008-2011? The article does not mention an 'ending', yet that would be something useful to know. Arlo James Barnes 23:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Has it ended? It was covered in Times Higher Education in November 2011[6]. And in Chronicle of Higher Education in February 2012[7]
The last article is an article about the coiner of the word, it says "These days he avoids the word because he fears people were preoccupied with the label rather than its goals. He uses a new creative outlet instead." Maybe we should add this to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edupunk. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edupunk. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)