Talk:Edupunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Please don't delete this article

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BlackBoard

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)

[edit] Wikipedia

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)

[edit] Moodle

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Original research

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] "poster boy" photography

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)