Talk:Khan Academy

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


I'm certain that Salman does not use Microsoft Paint any longer. Tehcarp (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however, most of his current videos are still from MS office.

Go Khan!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

He is from Modern day what is known as Bangladesh and people of Bangladesh take great pride in this. Can someone please correct this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Salman Khan[edit]

Resolved: Clear consensus to keep the articles separate. --Cliff (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sal created the Khan Academy, but the site is more than Khan himself. There are multiple software engineers, a translator coordinator, a COO, and other people in charge of running the site who work very hard. The Khan Academy is now a significant enough website to merit it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpletap (talkcontribs) 05:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. He has done lot more for humankind.
  • Oppose. I vote for not merging. I agree that Salman has become a notable personality.Yatesman (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think merging is a good idea, no need to be that exclusive. Also representing criticism/acclaim of this on this page would be good. (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Vote for not merging -- Khan seems to have become a noted personality of his own. Any later events/information not directly related to the academy may have to got to the person article. HonoluluMan (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It's enough to have one article, because the man is mostly notable for his activities with the Academy. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Khan's own article completely lacks secondary sources which cover him. A merge would be sensible for now; if sources which cover Khan himself are found then it can be later split back out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would like to link to a WP article that focuses on the lessons--appreciate the work of Mr. Khan, but would rather that be a separate article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose both meet notability criteria, elaborate on academy remote teaching criticism Accotink2 talk 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose Article noteworthy in its own right William (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of the most influential teachers of our time. The only reason why this merge is being suggested is because there is currently a one to one relationship between Khan and the Academy he created. However both topics are noteworthy on their own. --Gerrywastaken (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A video of Khan being used as a guest on CNN where almost no mention is made of his academy and instead the emphasis is his knowledge of the credit crisis. I believe this should be enough to demonstrates his noteworthiness: --Gerrywastaken (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Khan Academy project has recently received US $2 million from Google in donations and a bit more from the Gates Foundation (was it 3.5 million?). This is since recently no longer a one man project and therefore I vote for keeping the pages separate. Tommy (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarifying Comment The Khan Academy received US$1.5 Million from the Bill and Mellinda Gates Foundation and US$2 Million from Google, as per the article in Wired Magazine. The article would seem to clarify a number of misconceptions above; the fact is that Khan Academy is now a team. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

History section.[edit]

In the first sentence, Khan is referred to as a Bangledeshi American. Since he was not born in Bangledesh, I am not certain this is appropriate. In the cited reference, he states: "I was born and raised in New Orleans, Lousiana. My mother was born in Calcutta, India. My father was born in Barisal, Bangladesh." Nowhere does he identify as "Bangledeshi American", nor "Indian American". His first statement is that he is from the US, as such I am removing nationality/ethinicity statements from the history section. I am open to discussion of this point, of course. Cliff (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to label him as "south asian" descent as that includes both of his parents' homelands. Many articles refer to a persons religion or ancestry. For example, other pages note a person's Jewish ancestry. Does this mean all of those pages should remove such ethnicities? Why only this one? I think its only fair to at least mention he is south asian. Surag198 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the information should only be mentioned in an info-box and not in the body text. HankyUSA (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The source from which that material was drawn does not indicate that Mr. Khan identifies with any of the regional or ethnic groups indicated either on the article, or in discussion here. None of the sources indicate his self-identification as anything other than American. If a source is found in which Mr. Khan identifies himself as "south Asian" then I will have no objection. Until then, I do not think it appropriate for Wikipedia to assume that he wants to be labeled in such a way. @Surag198: Only this one because it's the one I happened across. Tell me where the others are and I'll correct those too. His parents are mentioned just sentences later, If you want to consider him south Asian, feel free, but until he chooses to label himself as such, we have no right to do so publicly. Cliff (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
A little searching and I found this. IF the consensus on this talk page is to add this information, the guideline says we should say "American of south-Asian descent." I don't think this is necessary however. And is, in fact, redundant since his parents' countries of origin are listed shortly thereafter. Cliff (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything you say is very reasonable. However, there is a distinct inconsistency in enforcing the Wikipedia protocols that indicates a certain ignorance of other cultures which could be interpreted as bias. If you look at the Mark Zuckerberg page you will see statements indicating he is of Jewish descent and had bat mitzvahs etc...yet in those very articles (really only 1, the other doesn't bother to mention anything-so I'm unaware why it is cited) he states that he's not even Jewish and does not identify himself as Jewish at all. You could go ahead and change that, but the problem is, many articles are like this about individuals who are of Jewish descent-I do not see this labeling for protestants or catholics etc. on such a consistent basis. I have no problems with this identification-I would just appreciate it if it were extended for others as well. While the Jewish faith is a label of religion, it is also a cultural identification distinct from other groups-this is supported by such identifications as "born to Jewish parents" etc. for individuals who do not even suggest they practice Judaism. In other words, using "South Asian," "Indian," "Pakistani," or "Bangladeshi" is just as appropriate. The reason why you will find articles readily describing one as Jewish or of Jewish background (even if, again, they are not practicing) is because it is a far more familiar culture and name. The reason why you wont find articles labeling him or others as South Asian is because this terminology is not familiar to many writers. Whether he associates himself with a particular identity is irrelevant simply because, as I have shown, other identities such as Jewish people do not label themselves as such yet they are labeled on Wikipedia. That is, without uniformity, there is a double standard on Wikipedia. I do not think it is on purpose. The reason why I think he should be labeled as such is to ensure that the contributions of South Asians in this country are noted. The importance is there simply because other minority groups are labeled this way as well. To be consistent, either all other group labels must be removed (an impossible task) or the labeling should continue. I support the latter. Please reconsider. Thanks! Surag198 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel right about this statement's current location. As the first sentence in a biography, it seems like WP thinks this is the most important thing that people should know about Mr. Khan, and it clearly is not. Cliff (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I still also think it is redundant and unnecessary. Cliff (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed to reflect your concerns. I do not feel it is redundant. I think Wiki should start mentioning people are of South Asian descent or not. Or entirely remove superfluous comments about other people's associations with groups. Again, why is Mark Zukerberg mentioned as having Jewish background if he is an Atheist?Surag198 (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious affiliations are different than what you are recommending here. Judaism is a group, not many people will argue that. I don't think many people have heard of a "south Asian" group. It's not well defined. Where is the border between south Asia and north Asia? I agree that people like to over-categorize each other. Cliff (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my delayed response. All good points. But, please do reread my points on that above. I actually addressed that very concern of yours. Many times, people labeled persons of Jewish descent even if they were self-described atheists. In my argument about Mark Zukerberg(sp), I stated that he himself describes himself as an atheist and no affiliation for being Jewish. However, after being prodded repeatedly by his interviewers he mentions his Jewish history. The reason this is even brought up in interviews, as I mentioned before, is because people are familiar with Judaism in this country and elsewhere. However, Sout-Asian term is unfamiliar to many in the West. South Asian refers to those who are part of or were part of what is called the subcontinent of Asia. These countries include Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. So anyone from these countries could be considered South Asian (even if they have very different cultural and religious differences, they are actually mostly of the same genetic variation). Similarly, Jewish persons also are genetically distinct from other groups. Jews are not just religious (though it is certainly possible to convert to it and not be of the same genetic relationship), they are also a distinct genetic and regional group. South Asians too are a distinct genetic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surag198 (talkcontribs) 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Using a description of a person as being Jewish isn't exactly the best example to be citing for the purposes of mentioning someone's ethnicity. Referring to me by my parents' ethnicity, if I choose not to identify myself as such, or haven't made it clear that I prefer it, might certainly (read "upset me greatly" here). Identification of oneself as a member of a particular ethnicity ought to be an individual's choice, not a (ham-handedly) applied label, and since his parents are from two different regions, who is anyone else to choose which one the man himself "ought" to choose to identify himself as? Is this Wikipedia or Yahoo Answers??? -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Khan already has a biography page, I don't see the relevance of his ethnicity on the article about the Academy itself. It should be deleted from here and the argument about whether it's applicable or not should be confined to his biography. Gramby (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

External video(s)[edit]

I've spent a lot of my Wiki-time at Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory so some might think I have some COI here, but don't worry, I don't work for Khan Academy or Smarthistory. (BTW they would like it spelled "Smarthistory" now). With the GLAM project, I've been working out how external videos should be best presented on Wikipedia (anybody is welcome to help at Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory), and in short, it looks like the TED talk should actually link from the body of the text, using the External Media template. Any feedback on this welcome.

I then tried the other linked video (about the heart) and it doesn't seem to work - I get audio, but no video. Three points here - 1) the external media template would work well, so I'll likely come back in a couple of days and replace it; and 2) the "video" here is uploaded to Commons, but I don't think it should be according to Commons rules, since it is licensed CC-BY-NC. Although I hate to delete things on Commons that nobody else objects to, I may have this and similar videos deleted.

3) Ultimately (in weeks or months), I'd like to start linking non-art related KA videos to regular articles. I (or hopefully "we") should be a bit careful on this. How videos are linked, beyond a simple - but in my opinion useless - link under "External links", can be controversial. BTW, I've started using the external media template outside of art articles and linking to C-SPAN, PBS stations, the National Building Museum and other museums. So far, and I hope permanently, these links are all to strictly non-profit organizations. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that this particular video is just very hard to see the movement on the video in the small format on this page. Going to Commons and watching it in a larger format (and being a bit patient) shows that the video is working. Moreover, the uploader knew about the CC-NC-BY problems but claimed that this particular one was then licensed simply CC-BY. I do not dispute that claim, but note that now it has an NC license on YouTube. I think that this video (or perhaps another video) should be linked by the external media template, where it is very easy to get a much larger view of the video. In short I'll replace, but not try to delete it on Commons. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Come on guys, this page is a true advertising for the project. Be realistic and try to do a real wikipedia page. It should say this article needs improvements. The last phrase with and ending ! is a true TV commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

ITA. it's clearly written by their marketing team. A real article should have a section for criticism or problems. (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed by Dude13371337 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude13371337 (talkcontribs) 07:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


It seems as if this article (or at least the Educational Impact section) might in in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. The article focuses almost entirely on the positive aspects of the Khan Academy without any of the various criticism it has received for pedagogy, mistakes, etc. I think there is definitely room in this article for a criticisms section. benwildeboer(talk - contribs) 20:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for presenting a more encyclopedic article especially in regards to things such as notable criticisms. Let's make sure that we use reliable sources if and when we do so. WDavis1911 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that some of the material and software of the website is CC, some MIT licence, and some proprietary, though I can't find the information as obviously presented as it is on Wikipedia, or in many articles which have licencing info in the infobox. More licensing information would be great (you never know, if there is a note about the difficulties of using the material on Wikipedia, someone might change the licensing). Could we also have more info on the revenue sources, please? They all have their advantages and drawbacks. The privacy notice says that it does not advertise or sell data, but may allow third parties to gather data directly though their website. So I'm assuming most of the revenue comes from donations. As a non-profit, they must publish financial info somewhere. HLHJ (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This reads like advertorial copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible criticism recently discussed on Slashdot alludes to (possibly defensive) patent application made by Khan Academy concerning Methods and Systems for Learning Computer Programming. IANAL so cannot comment further CastWider (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Unfortunately, this article is not neutral. It does not contain any information on notable opponents to Khan Academy. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've now added a criticism section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:CSECTION thats not how we do it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to that essay. I hadn't seen it before. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the essay is a pretty clear explanation of how the policy of NPOV should be applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent essay and I have no objections to applying its advice here. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Khan academy image[edit]

How can i get permition to put Khan academy logo image in serbian page of Khan academy( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Đorđe Batić (talkcontribs) 11:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


Youtube is mentioned several times in the article, but Youtube is only one of the hosts of the videos for the present website. It seems to me all references to Youtube, except the historic one, are irrelevant. Pauluzz (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)