Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editSome people think that edmodo is like facebook and in away it is it's like educational facebook
Edmodo is where you can sort of have a convo with your teachers and ask if you have homework and things like that Some times wiki is wrong bout some things. Sighned Alannah shannon fitzpatrick
Marketing article
editThis article reads like a marketing article.
- Agreed - the likes of "but in a format that keeps the teacher firmly in control" sounds like it comes straight from their marketing dept. Good that there is an article on this software, but it should be neutral and encyclopaedic in style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neezes (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Potential risks
editThe article should address a range of implications.
E.g.
- - surrendering control of student-related information to a commercial company
- - providing student details to a commercial company
- - placing learning materials in an area over which a school has no absolute control
- - risks of inappropriate contact between students, or between adults and students — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.51.188.140 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism rollback
editThere's been a fair bit of vandalism in this article, and ironically, cluebot actually restored some vandalism that was removed.
Based on an email sent by a reader (ticket:2018103110008962 ), I concur that rolling back to the 25 August version removes some of the vandalism. I'm mentioning this on the chance that some of the intervening edits were appropriate and would now be lost.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)