From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - North Carolina State University (marked as Low-importance).


How is this written like an advertisement? I don't see it.Mazeau (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Where is it documented that 9000 students signed a petition regarding WebAssign's grading tolerance? It would be nice to know the type of petition (paper, on-line, etc), whether the students signing it were actual WebAssign users, etc. Otherwise it isn't really up to Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire page isn't up to wikipedia standards. It's a puff piece for WebAssign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section appearsto be the writers opinion that is not sourced anywhere. The two links are only to webassigns pay options and nothing on actual criticism. The criticism itself, while not being sourced, is also silly garbage. The same complaint can be made of textbooks or any other course material. I am removing it unless anyone has any real objections. ZgokE (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NCSU Has Written an Advertorial[edit]

I updated this article to include data I received, from WebAssign, after having problems with it as a student: namely that it's not friendly toward students who go to school and work because the WebAssign servers slow down terribly in the evening, and WebAssign offers no help with their product on the weekends--to use it successfully, you have to use it during working hours, and that's when I work.

The WebAssign people took down all of my comments.

I also noted that WebAssign often marked wrong answers right and, less often, marked right answers wrong. For instance, it might mark t/2 as incorrect, but (1/2)t as correct, when they're the same answer. I was taking a calculus course and many of the answers were complex--I spent hours laboring over WebAssign problems I'd gotten right, only to realize that WebAssign simply wanted parentheses in different places.

In fact, they've taken down all negative comments, including some about the product being difficult for disabled users. Talk about heartless bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalabarClay (talkcontribs) 23:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Major Edits[edit]

Disclosure: The author of these edits is a WebAssign employee responsible for corporate communications and marketing. Major edits have been submitted to update the content and establish a baseline focusing on a company description more so than product descriptions.

WebAssign is a broadly used application with multiple features and enhanced variations, a large amount of content, and options for instructor customization. Naturally there are wide-ranging opinions on the user experience. Comments and issues regarding product performance are welcome and appreciated as postings in the Talk section or on other forums suitable for more detailed interactive discussion. WACorporate (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are also removing all the references from the page. An "employee responsible for corporate communications and marketing" has a major Conflict of interest and should probably refrain from editing the page at all. --220 of Borg 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This article deserves to be deleted.[edit]

This article is clearly written only for the people who make this product. The product is incredibly poor, and all sections that address this have been removed. In addition, the corporation has openly edited the article for their own benefit. Really, all of the criticism is relevant and as long as it can be sourced it should be included. The sources that are currently used are not all primary sources and two out of five are from the company's website. If this article cannot be turned into something more than a poorly-sourced advertisement, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)