Talk:Anthology Inc./Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussing Criticism section

Hi again, all. In my previous post above, I'd noted that I'd like to discuss the Criticism section of the article, and I'm now returning to that topic. Generally, I'm of the opinion that criticism or controversy sections should be avoided, per WP:CRITS, and wonder if editors would be in favor of integrating the information from the Criticism into sections of the article where it might best fit.

If so, here is my suggestion for placing the material within other sections:

• The details in the first paragraph could be included in the History section in the Company expansion and buyout subsection or start of the New leadership section, since their sources are from 2012 and 2011, respectively
• The sentence about the user interfaces could be added to the Blackboard Learn section (I also have an update to suggest to this information, see draft below)

On the other hand, I understand if other editors feel that a dedicated section is the best place to collate criticism of the company and its products. If it is preferable to retain the Criticism section, then I'd like to suggest a small addition and a few adjustments to the existing text:

• I've found a couple of recent sources that note that the user interface, which was a key area of criticism, is being updated
• Currently, the section gives no indication in the text as to when the noted criticisms are from. I'd suggest adding in the source dates to the text to give readers more idea of when each criticism arose. This would help show, for example, that it wasn't a really early criticism that is no longer relevant
• Also, there are direct quotes not attributed in the text of the article, although WP:MOSQUOTE would indicate they should be in cases such as these where opinions are given, so I'd suggest adding in a brief attribution

The below shows the section with my suggestions in green:

Criticism suggestions

According to a TechCrunch article from 2012, despite its success, Blackboard had become "one of the most disliked — even detested — companies in education." In December 2011, Fast Company reported that 93% of respondents to the Amplicate customer opinion survey "hate" the company.

The company's products' user interfaces became "infamous as a part of academic life that was to be endured, not enjoyed" according to TechCrunch writer Rip Empson in 2014. According to EdSurge, as of 2015, the company was in the process of updating its learning management system and the user interface within it, noting that navigation of the latter had been a cause of "dismay" for long-time users.

References

Markup

According to a ''TechCrunch'' article from 2012, despite its success, Blackboard had become "one of the most disliked — even detested — companies in education."<ref name=Empson-18-Oct-2012>{{cite news|last1=Empson|first1=Rip|title=Blackboard: With Both Co-founders Now Gone, It’s The End Of An Era For The Education Software Giant|url=http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/18/with-both-co-founders-now-gone-its-the-end-of-an-era-for-education-software-giant-blackboard/|accessdate=13 December 2014|publisher=[[Techcrunch]]|date=18 October 2012}}</ref> In December 2011, ''[[Fast Company (magazine)|Fast Company]]'' reported that 93% of respondents to the Amplicate customer opinion survey "hate" the company.<ref name=kamenetz-13-dec-14>{{cite news|last1=Kamenetz|first1=Anya|title=The Ingenious Business Model Behind Coursekit, A Tumblr For Higher Education|url=http://www.fastcompany.com/1799173/ingenious-business-model-behind-coursekit-tumblr-higher-education|accessdate=13 December 2014|work=[[Fast Company (magazine)|Fast Company]]}}</ref>

The company's products' user interfaces became "infamous as a part of academic life that was to be endured, not enjoyed" according to ''TechCrunch'' writer Rip Empson in 2014.<ref name=Empson14/> According to ''EdSurge'', as of 2015, the company was in the process of updating its learning management system and the user interface within it, noting that navigation of the latter had been a cause of "dismay" for long-time users.<ref name=EdSurge15b>{{cite web |url=https://www.edsurge.com/blackboard-inc |title=Blackboard Inc. |author= |date= |work=[[Edsurge|EdSurge]]|publisher= |accessdate=7 May 2015}}</ref><ref name=EdSurge15a>{{cite web |url=https://www.edsurge.com/n/2015-02-04-blackboard-s-next-acquisition-schoolwires |title=Blackboard's Next Acquisition: Schoolwires |author= |date=4 February 2015 |work=[[Edsurge|EdSurge]]|publisher= |accessdate=7 May 2015}}</ref>

Once again, I won't make any of these edits myself due to my COI, so I encourage others to review, offer their thoughts and make such edits as are most appropriate. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick ping note for editors who've discussed this article with me before, and / or reviewed my edits here: Ɱ, DGG, ChrisGualtieri, Jonpatterns and NQ, as well as pinging DissidentAggressor who added the current Criticism section. Your input would be most welcome here. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a criticism section is usually not desirable, as WP:CRITS explains. However if another thought it is, then that probably warrants more discussion. However, I did make the wording additions you suggested.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ɱ. Likewise, I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this. Just a quick note on your edits: I see you added an {{as of}} template into the new final sentence of the section, which is helpful, but looks like it needs to have the lowercase parameter added. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you're right.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, just checking in here to see if anyone else had thoughts about the Criticism section and how it should be handled? Are any other editors in favor of splitting up this information into relevant sections, rather than retaining a standalone Criticism section? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've merged the criticism into the body of the article. - NQ (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate all the input here and thanks NQ for your edits. I hope that if there are any disagreements about these changes, editors can discuss it here. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Market share details

It looks like the market share statistics are from the techcrunch article that's a few years old now, and which was likely from a company press release. While BB likely peaked at around 75% marketshare, the best market data I can find seems to indicate that their higher ed market share has steadily declined and is now closer to 34% (rather than 75%). This source is only counting institutions with over 500 FTE - http://edutechnica.com/2016/10/03/4th-annual-lms-data-update/

Not sure on K12 data, but I imagine that it's now similarly out of date. You can see the longer term higher ed trend here http://mfeldstein.com/state-higher-ed-lms-market-spring-2016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.246.204 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, Moodle is by far the dominant player in the VLE environment, and I suspect this might be true in the US too. There has been a steady trend in the last 15 years of universities who had been on WebCT moving to Moodle and next to no move in the other direction. This is anecdotal / first hand, but at an annual MoodleMoot in the UK I chatted about this during the lunch break to a Blackboard representative on one of the vendor stands that were provided display space. He confirmed that the Blackboard customer base had, indeed, declined steadily for a number of years and that a lot of their revenue now comes from providing support to Moodle sites.

The information in the article is clearly well out of date. Perhaps there are other, more up-to-date sources that could provide a picture of current market share. Moodle appears to have been dominant, globally, for a number of years. See, for example, https://mfeldstein.wpengine.com/academic-lms-market-share-view-across-four-global-regions/