Talk:Edgenuity

Initial review under new article review / curation process

I did an initial review under new article review / curation process. One question at this stage is whether or not the topic meets the wp:notability requirements to exist as a separate article. I believe that the answer is yes and will be marking this article as reviewed. That said, there are several concerns about the article. About 80% of the article reads like an advertisement, wording of the that would be created by the company that is promoting the product. The other 20% was covering criticism of the product/service. So IMO the article is mostly lacking in normal objective enclyclopedic coverage of the topi.

It looks like user Hillelfrei (not the creator) has done a significant amount of work to improve the article with respect to the issues noted above. A great effort.

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The tag was with respect to wording and not saying that the overall article is biased. Upon further looking at the sources I can see that evolution suggested is more of a long term goal than something requiring a top level tag and I'm fine with the tag having been removed. I also removed a concern expressed after learning more in discussions with the initial editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: Thanks for your patient and helpful messages. I guess I can see how it sounds like an advertisement, but as you say, it's hard to describe such a product in an "encyclopedic tone". I'll see what I can do using the sources below. Kind regards, Hillelfrei^{• talk •} 15:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei: Happy editing; let me know if I can help. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei and North8000:I agree, its just with all the good...lets see... 6 million articles taken already, it's up to everyone else to pick at the scraps. Thanks for your help! Le Panini (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Edgenuity

(copied from my (North8000) talk page)

Hello! Thank you for your time reviewing the Edgenuity article. I understand what you mean when you say it feels like an advertisement, but after elaborating, I can't determine what I need to alter specifically. And trust me, I have no affiliation with this company, other than a student who uses and mildly dislike it. Can you state what wording, context, or sources need to be altered?

Le Panini (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Thanks for the post. It helps me understand the situation in order to try to do a better job of helping. I think that what has happened is that you are extracting the most readily available facts from the sources and are ending up with mostly the types of things that the company would say the way they would say them. You did end up including criticisms, but you are missing a lot of the general and description that thorough independent sources would write to inform the reader about them.

Ideally the best sources to develop an article from are ones that independent in-depth coverage of the topic. Indeed one of wain ways to pass wp:notability for the topic is to see if there are a few of such sources. The article was sort of short on this but I decided that the amount of sourcing and real-world notability is so immense on this, and that it is an encyclopedic topic which many people will be coming to Wikipedia for (especially now) that I certainly shouldn't fail (send to wp:afd) it on wp:notability, and that it would certainly be kept at AFD if I did. Upon closer look, I see that you have a really tough job here. None of the sources in the article are quite that ideal one. So in short, your job as an editor is tough because you are short on the best kind of sources to build an article from., Searching is tough because so much coverage is either by the supplier or by schools who bought it and thus are supporting it / their decision.

I searched harder and found some that I think could help in this respect:

• https://www.edsurge.com/product-reviews/edgenuity

• https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/05/a-grown-up-tries-out-online-learning-finds-himself-as-bored-as-real-high-school-students.html

• https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/5/20/21108176/this-school-district-outsourced-many-of-its-high-school-courses-to-an-online-program-but-it-s-not-cl

• https://miruscharter.com/online-learning-with-edgenuity/

Another way to look at it is to think of someone who doesn't know what Edgenuity is and goes to Wikipedia to find out. The vague "advertisement" type statements don't say very much. My suggestion would be to read those 4 sources (not that they are perfect) and to take what you learned and derived from them to answer the question "What is Edgenuity?" Hopefully that helps a little. Let me know if I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@North8000:Thanks for the help! I was wondering if I should use Edsurge as a reliable citation. I've gotten better at being non-advertisement like, and I heard that certain sources I need to be careful about including. Reading this one, however, I'm unsure. Could Edsurge be used in context, or is it a source created by school platforms? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 14:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I could easily criticize the edsurge source on Wikipedia technicality grounds. But let me give my own reasoning. The subject has immense scope, real world notability and current importance and so IMO there should be an article on it. At least in my search things are a bit slim on perfect sources, so we need to settle for near-perfect. I think that his source is in the near-perfect category. Sounds neutral and knowledgable. It's a real organization and is independent of Edgenuity. My opinion would be to use it. In areas that are characterizations or opinion, I'd include attribution type wording, otherwise not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm only really using this source for history, so I believe it's fine, too. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Religious and Capitalist Propaganda

Shouldn't we also mention religious propaganda, and the problem of instructors giving out bible lessons for a public school? That should be mentioned as well in Edge.

Wow, look at that! The thing about Edgenuity is that a lot of this content is hidden; you have to go out of your way to find this kind of stuff. I'm not available to do this right now, but if someone else watching is interested I'll leave the stuff here. If not, I'll probably get around to expansion tomorrow.

• American Atheists Launches Investigation into Religious Propaganda in Online Public School Courses During COVID-19 - Main source
• Gendered, Racial and Religious Biases Infiltrate Virtual Learning Curriculums
• Davenport mother upset over what she calls religious propaganda in her sons public school learning materials

Pinging 107.184.63.8 if they're interested in the task. Panini!^🥪 19:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Founded in 1988, and Scottsdale, New York?

Old edits show that the location was set as Scottsdale, NY when it's actually Scottsdale, AZ as there's no such city as Scottsdale in New York but there's a similar city named Scarsdale and had no presence there.

And a edit from 2021 said it was founded in 1988, Not true. Actually it was founded in 1998. It was fixed. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

GabrielPenn4223, This is for good article reassessment; the proper format is WP:GAI. I would like to warn you though that I have put some work into this every now and then for kicks, but it's just for fun and from my knowledge is absolutely not good article ready. Lot's of information is not covered and what is there is covered in very low quality (this was my first ever Wikipedia contributions). Panini! • 🥪 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that you might have your Wiki terms confused. GA Reassessment is only for articles that are already GA where removal of the GA status is being considered. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW, the PROD is for deletion of the reassessment page which is transcluded here, not for deletion of this page. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Withdrawn. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Edgenuity → E2020 – Known as E2020 for 15 years, and has been Edgenuity for 10/11 years now. WP:COMMONNAME. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose GabrielPenn4223 appears not to have read the guideline they were invoking, otherwise they would have seen WP:NAMECHANGES. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn and speedy close. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.