Talk:freeCodeCamp

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FreeCodeCamp article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Edits made by the below users were last checked for neutrality on 23 January 2024 by Erictleung.

Jan Schreiber (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://www.freecodecamp.com/janschreiber)
Jamesjpk (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://www.freecodecamp.com/jamesjpk123)
Erictleung (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://www.freecodecamp.org/erictleung)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/04/free-code-camp-survey-reveals-demographics-of-self-taught-coders/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2493688,00.asp
https://www.freecodecamp.com/about/

GitHub stars[edit]

"The freeCodeCamp community's GitHub repository is the most-starred GitHub project by a wide margin.[8]"

While this is true, I think it stems partly from a call in the FreeCodeCamp curriculum to "go to GitHub and Star our repository" which was a little controversial and has since been removed. I'm not aware of any articles about this. I heard about it after the fact in the FCC forums. I think for me to make an edit based on that would be considered original research. But I think it's important in the context of evaluating the projects 'Reception'. --Tdreid (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I read exactly the same thing in the forums. Now, what to do? Should we just remove the information about the GitHub stars? IMHO, it is inessential anyway. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to remove it unless/until there is a secondary source to put this statistic in context. As you mentioned there are quite a few other avenues to discuss the popularity of the project.--Tdreid (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I removed it. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the fact that they said to "go to GitHub and Star our repository" causing controversy, could be expanded into a controversy section? Just a thought @Tdreid: @Jan Schreiber: Jamesjpk (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to make sense to me. Personally I feel we need a few more controversial things to warrant a "controversy" section, but why not? -- Jan Schreiber (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have they had any more controversy?? Mathmo ^Talk 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Sources[edit]

This page is currently only citing the subject itself, however, there sources all over the web that do not self-reference. Here are some:

[1], Wired
[2], Business Insider
[3], Recruiter.com
[4], EducationDive.com
[5], The Changelog
[6], Code Newbie Podcast
[7], Software Engineering Daily
[8], Alexa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDJAnalyst (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, all of those are clear business announcements, business profiles, mentions and all similar, which wouldn't at least satisfy our basic standard of WP:CORPDEPTH which itself states republished company information is unsuitable. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing COI discussion[edit]

I thought it might help to clarify the situation if I add that the two accounts most active in editing the article, Erictleung's and my own, are not employed by freeCodeCamp.

We wrote the article from a user perspective. We are both users of freeCodeCamp (and hence are not perfectly neutral sources, admittedly), but we aren't receiving money or any other kind of benefit from the organization. We're just users who think it might be valuable for other people to know about freeCodeCamp.

If it helps, I am not a rogue account trying to push a certain subject. I've been a regular contributor to the German Wikipedia for twelve years now. -- Jan Schreiber (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this discussion @Jan Schreiber:, there is a fourm where there is a request for an article made for this company. The company itself did not put out the request, members of the community put it out. No one is getting paid, or benefited from the article's creation, or maintenance.