Talk:Ignite!

Someone called EGGS (who apparently doesn't believe in edit summaries) slapped on an "advert" box and NPOV box minutes after I started this article, while I was still in the process of editing it. The paragraph that reads like an advert was cut and pasted from the Neil Bush page, and I am still working on verifying its sources and rewriting it for NPOV. I've removed this paragraph in the meantime. wikipediatrix 00:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this news item: http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3742329.html 04:28, 25 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.134.30 (talk • contribs)

Editorial Claims

It bothers me that so much of this article is being based on slanted editorial rather than actual facts. If an editorial is going to be cited, it should be clearly noted that it is an opinion, and the opposing opinions should also be presented. (several opposing viewpoints were published as a result of the Houston Chronicle's editorial, many of which are obviously more fact based.)70.113.208.174 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the language. It bothers me that the "slanted editorial" text was a relatively small part of the article, yet you say "so much of this article is being based" on that editorial. It also bothers me that you think that letters to the editor, which can obviously come from people with major interests in Ignite! (company officials, PR firm, relatives, investors, etc.) should be taken seriously. They certainly do not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements. John Broughton 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only "obvious" letters where people have a clear interest such as Neil Bush and Tom Delaganis and they are fully disclosed. Are you saying the other writers shouldn't be taken seriously, or only those that are critical of the company and/or a member of the Bush family?

I'd like to see a supportable statement that the Ignite program isn't effective, instead of just snobbish dismissal.

Like the VP said, the name "Bush" works against them, but teachers still buy the product.70.113.208.174 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general with 70.113.208.174. As a result, I have better clarified the types of professional experience with which both "sides" quoted possess. I have to say I don't see what place the Chronicle editorial kerfluffle has here, anyway, as part of a serious discussion of Ignite's MI-based approach. It might be better classified as "media criticisms" rather than the shoddy-worksmanship-sounding "quality of software" title. I don't think anyone is claiming the *quality* is a problem. MI, on the other hand, is somewhat controversial, but that's not really specific to Ignite's use of that approach.--67.101.67.215 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to the editor

It is unacceptable to put text from a letter to the editor into a wikipedia article, UNLESS the person is an obvious expert. A teacher or parent or even a school superintendent is NOT an expert. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. That is exactly what a letter to the editor is. Wikipedia articles aren't the place for "he said, she said" discussions, when the "he" and "she" are non-notable individuals who are not eyewitnesses to unique events.

I've left in the article the words from letters by Neil Bush and the VP of the company - those are clearly noteworthy. John Broughton 13:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your characterization of that content, and I'm afraid you are missing the point of the reliable sources guidelines. In this case, the source is the Houston Chronicle, not the particular teacher that the Chronicle published. A letter to the editor is essentially an op-ed-in-minature. Every paper has their own particular standards, but in general these letters are not published verbatim, but edited for clarity and to remove any clearly factually incorrect assertions. If the Chroncile editorial board kerfluffle is to be mentioned at all, then the couterpoints which that same source - the Chroncile - has published must be included as well in order to show both POVs. Neither side is being quoted as an expert, they are being quoted as the sides in the kerfluffle, that kerfluffle being related to the subject of the article.

You do have my agreement that the whole thing is a "he said, she said" which does not belong at all. But that *includes* the editorial. I say it should all go. I'll leave that decision for you to come around to it you since you put it in originally. In the meantime, the article must include an accurate description of what the Chronicle has published re. this kerfluffle, rather than just half of it.--67.101.67.215 13:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, "in general [that is, at most newspapers] these letters are edited ... to remove any clearly factually incorrect assertions" is NOT the same as "independent fact-checking" that is required by wikipedia policy. I think you're the one missing the point.

Wikipedia has a variety of ways to resolve differences: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you are not agreeable to removing the text from the teacher's letter to the editor (a link would be nice), then I would like you to pick one a process that you are willing to abide by, to settle this matter. John Broughton 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate that you are confusing one thing with another re. reliable sources. This article is documenting the *kerfluffle* related to Ignite's product. You are confusing that with the citing of the content as a source re. the actual pedagogic value of the Ignite courseware. As a historical record of the debate the Chronicle is indeed a reliable, independently fact-checked source. I don't see how you can say the facts are not adequately checked: certainly the Chronicle can vouch that their editorial board wrote what they wrote. They can similarly can independently vouch that the teacher wrote what she wrote (letters don't get published without first making contact with the letter writer). Your argument would be valid if the article were instead quoting some other internet site that simply reported "the Chronicle board said X and the teacher said Y."

Beyond trying to help you get your head around the reliable sources stuff, I must also reiterate: we are documenting a debate started and held on the Chronicle's editorial pages. To document only one of the two main POVs expressed in that debate would be odd. While I still don't see the point for documenting this at all, perhaps the controversy belongs in its own daughter article. Would that make you more comfortable with giving it what I would consider the properly balanced magnitude of coverage?

Additionally, I have located a link for this letter. With all the Chroncile links added recently, I had not noticed that the original poster neglected to include one. --67.101.67.215 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the entire paragraph that I wanted:

The effectiveness of the learning programs continues to be questioned. An August 2006 editorial in the Houston Chronicle said of the approach: "Its reliance on jingles, cartoons and other snippets seems more likely to reinforce [the limitation of short attention spans of children] than to nourish intellect and learning."

That paragraph already encapsulates "give-and-take" - it conceded that there are certainly people out there who think that the learning programs work. Nor do I have an objection to adding text from the Deliganis response, which I was unaware of at the time, saying (essentially) "yes it does work". (You only put the Deliganis response in the "Promotional activities by Bush family" section.) Such an addition would provide even more give-and-take, while meeting wikipedia standards.

Let me see if I can be perfectly clear: it IS newsworthy when an editorial board questions the effectiveness of the product of a major business, and such editorials DO meet wikipedia criteria for reputable sources. It is NOT newsworthy when non-notable individuals who have experience with the product write letters to the editor saying the product works. People object to editorials all the time. Moreover, you don't want to put in the article "A teacher wrote in to object" - you want to put in THE TEACHER'S WORDS.

It may or may not be fair, but if a thousand people write something in a blog, or in a newspaper, that fact (yes, it's a fact) is STILL not includable in wikipedia articles, per wikipedia policy, unless a reputable source actually mentions it.

So, again: either remove mention of that letter to the editor (feel free to add the response by N. Bush, or Deliganis, in its place), or select a method of dispute resolution, or I will select a method, because you in no way have convinced me. John Broughton 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An fyi - you are confusing me with someone else re. the Deliganis stuff.

I think you may be conflating your arguments about newsworthiness with those about reliable sources. As I believe I've said, I find the entire debate non-worthy of inclusion. I don't "want to put in" anything. But again, if it is included, from a reliable source, at a quoation level, then it shouldn't be fractional. The Chronicle is a reliable source of both the editorial board's opinion and the education professional's/customer's opinion. The editor who originally added it was in no way out of line with the reliable sources standards for documenting the kerfluffle. Do you dispute any of what I said here?:

As a historical record of the debate the Chronicle is indeed a reliable, independently fact-checked source. I don't see how you can say the facts are not adequately checked: certainly the Chronicle can vouch that their editorial board wrote what they wrote. They can similarly can independently vouch that the teacher wrote what she wrote (letters don't get published without first making contact with the letter writer).

--67.101.67.215 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Broughton is confused. *I* was the one who started editing the one-sided editorial content. I also agree that the whole Chronicle issue should be discarded. In my opinion, the original Chronicle editorial was misguided. Given the reader responses, and especially those questioning the Chronicle's journalistic practices, I'm obviously not alone.

As for John Broughton's other comments, the editors at the Chronicle are not experts and are not qualified to pass judgement on instructional methods, let alone determine what might be a violation of school district policy. Teachers and superintendants are clearly more the experts in this area than journalists.

The Chronicle is clearly throwing mud, but is frustrated that it isn't sticking. There's really no story here, folks. Sorry. If you want to document the mud throwing, fine, but let both sides be represented.

And what of this "program continues to be questioned"? By whom? I see no evidence that there has been questioning of Ignite's product in the past. You seem to be implying there is some ongoing issue. Would you care to support your statement?

Let's also lighten up on the loose throwing around of Wikipedia policies. An expert on Wikipedia policies should know that letters to the editor are not "self publishing". The only way to get self-published in a reputable paper is to buy a paid advertisement.

Finally, when I first read the Chronicle editorial, I got the distinct impression that they were using Wikipedia as a source...now that's bad. 70.113.208.174 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for spending so much time and energy on what, after some reflection, are some relatively minor points. I've done just some tiny tweakings of the wording (for example, "responded" rather than "rebutted") that I hope are acceptable; please feel free to tweak them further without having to explain here before (or after), and hopefully that will wrap up this phase of changes to the article. John Broughton 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "Experts" and Fixing Broken Links

Just fix the links and stick with the facts. Is that so hard? Also, please refrain from ad hominim attacks just because you don't agree with someone's viewpoint. Perhaps one shouldn't assume that anonymous posts from the same IP are from the same person, too. Many locations (e.g. public wireless access points) only have one IP. Several people active on the subject just might be in the same coffee house.70.113.208.174 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since everything seems to have to be "discussed", I'm removing a circular Wikipedia reference. The salary can stay if it can be sourced to something outside Wikipedia.70.113.208.174 21:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit for someone's "discussion". The citation of a former HISD employee who isn't likely to know of contract specifics (emphasis on "former") and is advocating a different educational method isn't quite NPOV. The figures he claims are not supported by other references on the internet (those are more around $3500), and there is no fixed pricing scheme. The best the ex-HISD employee could do is comment on the particular Houston purchase (even then it is questionable) and not on the price scheme of the product. Every school district probably has a different pricing point and policies, just like a lot of other products.

Still I think the whole Houston Chronicle "Kerfluffle" should just be dropped. It's a strained argument at best, although some of the quotes are interesting. It certainly shouldn't be presented as "fact".70.113.208.174 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any verifiable source that "there is no fixed pricing scheme", please add that information and the citation to the article.

As for the Houston Chronicle, the article contains nothing but facts: statements of people, properly attributed; the reader can judge for him/herself what their value is.

Finally, if you're concerned about others using the same IP address (coffeehouses can be so problematical that way, particularly if several other people coincidentally are interested in the very same low-activity topic that you are), possibly causing you to be improperly accused of (say) removing text without an explanation, may I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. John Broughton 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the same John Broughton, who was claiming earlier in this discussion that letters to the editor shouldn't be allowed? Funny, that. Since *YOU* are the one who thought it was necessary to put in the COWs price, you should be able to defend it. Some ex-HISD employee just spouts off a figure and you take that as citing gospel? *YOU* need to show adequate proof that the person was privvy to the contract details, plus you need to recognize that customer's negotiate their own deals. What might be a typical deal in Houston would could be wildly different in other districts. That's a basic sales 101 conecpt. Then you have the problem of your citer soaboxing for whiteboards instead of COWS. Whiteboards was what he wanted, but he didn't get them and that might have been a reason they let him go. Or possbly he has gone on to a whiteboard manufactuer and wants to pound down the competition. It all adds up to a lousy cite. A good cite would be having a real news item with verifiable fact about the deal from someone who knows the details.70.113.208.174 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle editorial contains more "opinions" than facts. If you feel so compelled to leave in these biased opinons, keep them presented as opinions, and not facts.

Yup, same person. I dropped out of that discussion because (a) it was going meta, and (b) it really didn't matter that much. My objection, of course, was to an letter by someone saying she was a schoolteacher who used the product; I objected because even if that was true, the information was a single data point (one teacher in one classroom), not from a recognized expert or authority who would have a wider viewpoint. I still don't think it belongs in the article, but it's not worth fighting about. The rest of the things from the article are clearly attributed opinions (Neil Bush, the VP at Ignite, the director of instructional technology, the editiorial board) and as such are, in my opinion, quite acceptable as such.

I'm not sure what problem you have with In August 2006, the Houston Chronicle editorial board (composed of 10 journalists) expressed reservations over Ignite's pedagogic approach. (That wording isn't mine, by the way - it's the wording of others who thought the original wording gave the sentence too much weight.) But if you can make this even more NPOV, sure, go ahead.

Some ex-HISD employee just spouts off a figure and you take that as citing gospel? Boy, you sure don't want to say "former director of instructional technology"; you'd rather keep repeating "ex-employee" (that could be, say, a janitor, right?). Do you really think a director-level professional would just "spout" a figure? In a public newspaper? And you've said yourself that the figure is probably closer to $3,500, so you've admitted the purchase figure isn't wrong by much, if it is wrong at all. And a 25% maintenance figure is fairly typical for courseware/software. It's not a "lousy" cite if all that is cited is a price - that's interesting and relevant. You can speculate all you want about why the guy would make up numbers (he was on the take from a whiteboard company ???), but it still looks like you don't want people to know what these systems cost. Of course the prices vary - that's why the article says what HISD paid, rather than just stating that "this is the price".) John Broughton 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love your double standards. Why do you hold the "former director of instructional technology" in such high esteem, yet you disrespect an actual teacher who used the product? Is it his fancy title, or does his POV just fit your worldview?

If that is what HISD paid, then make it clear that it is what HISD paid. I didn't "admit" anything about the purchase price. I'm just pointing out that others have been mentioning price that brings your source's info into question. $500 isn't much? Jeesh...you sure don't know anything about classroom budgets.70.113.208.174 20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on Houston Chronicle Editorial Claims

The revision of 01:03, 11 October 2006 75.34.99.164 was far more accurate. The Houston Chronicle editoral issues should not be spread across the article as facts. I have to agree that the Houston Chronicle editorial citations be dropped as their claims haven't proven accurate (e.g. no HISD policies were violated), letters to the editor are being used as sales figure sources (questionable practice), and the Houston Chronicle has no "Expert" authority to make judgements on educational methods. To make matters worse, none of this information seems to be available on-line anymore. I understand it need not be on-line to be cited, but relying on non-available editorials as fact sources is fishy. The editorial claims are, to be charitable, weak, and not being easily available makes them even weaker.Shortcut.road 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I've removed all information about the editorial board opinion and rebuttals to it. As for the credibility of letters to the editor, you might want to post your comments in the extended discussion, above. I withdrew from that discussion, and don't want to re-engage, but there are those who seem to feel strongly that such letters ARE credible. John Broughton | Talk 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:IgniteLogo.gif

Image:IgniteLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ignite!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214100142/http://www.logicalchoicetech.com/products/menu/view/319.html to http://www.logicalchoicetech.com/products/menu/view/319.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ignite!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203185816/http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/bushed/2002/04/12/neil/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/bushed/2002/04/12/neil/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]