Talk:WebCT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://virtuelcampus.univ-msila.dz/facsegc/== Criticisms == The criticisms are kind of harsh... no? 165.230.46.149 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see those guidelines the criticism mentions and whether they are for web pages or web applications which is what Vista has become Elrond25 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of Vista shouldn't be as complex as it is. Most of the time spent using it by a student will be simply to find links to resources such as lecture notes, tutorials and whatnot. Yes, the criticism is harsh, but it really is horrible in so many ways. Take this from somebody who has been forced to use it. Disclaimer: I haven't contributed to this article, nor do I intend to, since I'm well aware of my severe bias! ;) 210.49.123.186 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As a long-time user of WebCT (since 1998), and as a university staff member who supports the use of WebCT for both faculty and students, I think the criticism is not entirely fair. It represents a single point of view. It is in some ways accurate - for instance WebCT does "break" the back button, but that is true of almost every product that attempts to do the same thing as WebCT - it is true of Blackboard, it's true of Sakai, and it's true of eCollege. The software has steadily become more compliant with usability standards, and has increased it's access to disabled users - while it has not met the full requirements, criticizing it for this is to ignore it's history of improvement. WebCT deserves some criticism, it just needs to be a little more even-handed. I'm rewriting that portion. --d'Elaphant 14:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other learning software being horrible as well doesn't justify WebCT being the most horrible. Why do they need to use javascript links for documents? It's already heavily server dependent and I'm not quite sure why it needs to be as bloated as it is. All of the "features" it provides are shitty reinventions of things that have already been done on the internet, with open, well documented standards. There is no reason for *anyone* to use WebCT *ever*, and I'm quite irritated that anyone does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.2.47 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a user of a of WebCT as well, its really really annoying that it doesn't work "like the rest of the internet" does, I can't open multiple lecture note file (PDF or otherwise) into multiple tabs and the inability to use the back button makes downloading lecture notes so much more tedious than it needs to be... many of my fellow classmates could attest to this! --58.107.3.35 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

I saw Fa75 just kept reversing other people changes on the lawsuit regarding accessability in the criticisms section. I could see there are the other side information than those described currently by Fa75. I would love to see Fa75 bring his opinions to here rather than just plainly reversing other people edits and calling other people "naughty user". Calling other people "naughty" does not help improving the page and it does not conform with the general practice of wiki. --ppa 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit was dismissed, with prejudice, on November 19, 2007. Spellmanloves67 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see this as needed to be included Shoesss. Spellmanloves67 has supplied links to actual court documents.71.195.62.213 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No lawsuit was filed against WebCT. It would appear as if this section is being used by Capella University (75.134.128.140 traces to Minnesota) to discuss issues that are not directly pertinent to WebCT.Sxbrown (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, no lawsuit was filed against WebCT and the information posted does not contribute to an article about WebCT. It appears as if there is some kind of vendetta that is related to Capella University and that other articles, such as this one, are being used to espouse those views.Sxbrown (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time that I have attempted to discuss the information regarding WebCT. No lawsuit was filed against the company and the information posted is not relevant.Sxbrown (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has now been moderated by Wikipedia editors which is noted on your talk page at Spellmanloves67. Sxbrown (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit was filed on the main contenton that the technology that Capella was using, WebCT, was not in compliance with ADA and there for was the main reason for the Plaintiff's suit. In the article that has been sited you will see the follwoing quotes that back this up:

"claiming that it violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by using technology that does not accommodate his learning disabilities"

"Before the switch, he says, he received A's in the two courses he completed. With the new software (WebCT) in place, he says, he had trouble doing his assignments."

" Mr. La Marca claims that his suspension was in retaliation for his complaints about the software (WebCT)."

"Mr. Thomas says he has not ruled out also filing a suit against WebCT, the software company that the university uses for its online courses. "

Also, if you were to look at Document 155 of case 8:05-cv-00642-MLG [1] page five the the Defendant writes:"...throughout the pendency of the lawsuit, Plaintiff argued that not only did the University's learning platform, WebCT, discriminate against the disabled.."

What more evidence do you need to show that the Plaintiff's main argument was the University's platform (WebCT?Spellmanloves67 (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one sued WebCT. You appear to be on some type of vendetta by adding material not directly related to WebCT. As the Wikipedia moderator told you,

Following a comment at WP:AN (see WP:AN#Spellmanloves67) I have reviewed your recent edits and comments to your talkpage. I concur with those who suggest that the courtcase and findings should only be considered notable with regard to the articles directly (i.e. named as parties) relating to the parties concerned. There is no need to edit other related articles with the details of the case; at the most make a brief note (with link to main article). In some cases there is no value to the article in mentioning the case, and I suggest then it is better that it isn't included. It is better to have all the information present in one area, with internal links to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by LessHeard vanU, "courtcase and findings should only be considered notable with regard to the articles directly (i.e. named as parties) relating to the parties concerned." WebCT was not a named party in the lawsuit and is not relevant to this article.Sxbrown (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to disagree with this. The news stories clearly show that the plaintiffs lawyer and the plaintiff were basing their entire case on the fact the the learning platform was the main culprit and reason for the disagreements and the escalation of situation to a lawsuit. The lawyer himself is quoted as saying that a lawsuit against WebCT was possible. What more evidence does Spellmanloves67 need to give you? I really think that this is more about YOU not wanting it on an article than anything else.

When the plaintiff clearly quotes that the reason for the lawsuit was the software platform that Capella used and he filed a complaint with the US Department of Education concerning WebCT (and the fact that he feels Capella kicked him out of school for filing a complaint) than it has to be mentioned here. WebCT was the underlying focus of the lawsuit.

Your arguments have no support.Lavalamp405 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This all started when SXbrown erased parts of the article without even having any sort of conversation. Even though WebCT was not sued directly it was an incredibly important part of the proceedings. And who cares if soemone's IP address traces back to Minnesota? That makes your reasoning even more qualified?Spellmanloves67 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct?[edit]

Validity of defunct comment. WebCT is not defunct. I am currently enrolled in such a class based on the WebCT system, even bearing it's logo and trademark. --User:jackandmeg2001 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same opinion here... I don't think the article should shift to the past tense until the vast majority of schools have shifted to the Blackboard brand name... which may never happen; my high school just moved from Blackboard to Desire2Learn. --Nucleusboy 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[edit]

I've currently protected this page for three days, due to repeated edit warring; only administrators will be able to edit the page during that period. I highly encourage all concerned editors to use this talk page and/or the dispute resolution process to better develop consensus regarding the most appropriate article version. If needed, edits can be requested via the {{editprotected}} template, if those edits are simple, non-controversial, or are supported by consensus on this talk page. Thank you all for your time. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Luna. This article should not include information about a lawsuit that was not filed against WebCT. As noted in the current version, its says that the plaintiff "presented no evidence and did not argue that WebCT itself was discriminatory." If that is the case, then there is no point in including it in an article about WebCT. Sxbrown (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again Sxbrown you use selective portions of the sources for your argument. When the lawsuit was filed and during the whole proceedings the Plaintiff and his lawyer argued that WebCT was the main reason for the lawsuit. The lawyer and the plaintiff clearly blame the software platform of WebCT Vista as his inability to be successful. IT was not until the case went ot trial did the Plaintiff decide not to argue that WebCT was discrimitory"Spellmanloves67 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebCT was not a party to the lawsuit. It is not relevent to this article. Companies get sued all of the time and there is no reason to even mention such a lawsuit when the company, WebCT, was not involved. This has already been supported by another Wikipedia editor who stated that only articles that are directly (i.e. named as parties) should be noted: he said
Following a comment at WP:AN (see WP:AN#Spellmanloves67) I have reviewed your recent edits and comments to your talkpage. I concur with those who suggest that the courtcase and findings should only be considered notable with regard to the articles directly (i.e. named as parties) relating to the parties concerned. There is no need to edit other related articles with the details of the case; at the most make a brief note (with link to main article). In some cases there is no value to the article in mentioning the case, and I suggest then it is better that it isn't included. It is better to have all the information present in one area, with internal links to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WebCT was not a named party in the lawsuit.Sxbrown (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the lawsuit? How would you know they weren't named? Maybe we need to create a LaMarca v. Capella article page?Spellmanloves67 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebCT was the MAIN reason for the lawsuit. Why are you being such a WP:Dick and look up WP:Stalk.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is read the case title - WebCT was not directly named (i.e. named as a party) in the lawsuit. WebCT was not sued and no attorneys from WebCT were involved. The case was between a private party and a school. Sxbrown (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. You got all this from a case title? You need to do more research if you want to make such a broad statement. It's not about whether they were or weren't but rather that their software was mentioned and dicussed in trail and experts from WebCT were called? Why are you so bothered by this being part of the article? Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case did not involve WebCT. Why are you so convinced that WebCT was a party to the lawsuit? You were the one who has stated that WebCT was the main reason for the lawsuit. If it was, then why wasn't WebCT named as a party? Why was't WebCT sued? Where were WebCT's attorneys? If WebCT was not involved and the lawsuit was dimissed, then why is it relevent to an article on WebCT? Just because someone sues another a company, also doesn't make it worth worthy of mention. In this case, WebCT wasn't a party to the lawsuit. Why is this lawsuit even relevant to WebCT? It's not. You seem to have some personal reason for demanding that it being included in this article, why? Sxbrown (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This lawsuit wasn't added to the article by me. I only added the resulting outcome. IT is relevant because the plaintiff and his attorney both brought the fact that WebCT was the culprit leading to the issues. In just the one article that was sited WebCT is mentioned multiple time including the main reason for the lawsuit.

  • "claiming that it (Capella) violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by using technology (WebCT) that does not accommodate his learning disabilities."
  • "the administration installed a new software system, made by WebCT, for managing online courses. Mr. La Marca says he found the new setup(WebCT) confusing and difficult to work with. "It was just a navigational nightmare," he says. "It (WebCT) made it impossible for me to study."


  • "Before the switch, he says, he received A's in the two courses he completed. With the new software (WebCT) in place, he says, he had trouble doing his assignments."
  • "Mr. Thomas says he has not ruled out also filing a suit against WebCT, the software company that the university uses for its online courses. Officials of WebCT were not available for comment, but they pointed to their Web site, which states that the company's software abides by current guidelines for accommodating students with disabilities."

You keep saying it doesn't need to be but I disagree and I am holding my guns to the decision. There have been many critic's of WebCT and this case needs to be on this article to prove that WebCT does meet ADA standards and not the claims of the plaintiff.

I would say that it is you, not me, who has some personal issue with this case being mentioned on Wikipedia.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch at the lawsuit did not name WebCT, its dismissal was not a judicial determination that WebCT meets ADA standards, i.e. the dismissal does not "prove that WebCT does meet ADA standards". Moreover, lawsuits can be dismissed on various grounds that do not speak to the merits of the plaintiff(s)' allegations.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteryquest, I completely agree with you. If every lawsuit ever filed was mentioned on Widipedia, it would be impossible to find any information. Sxbrown (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad Musteryquest could get her two cents in. Now I feel so much better. Sorry. Disagree. Sxbrown created this mess when he just went to the site and erased that portion without discussion. Sorry. Disagree. I am working on an article dedicated completely to the lawsuit.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just start your own Wikipedia while you are at it?Mysteryquest (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Concerning WebCT, it should be noted in the dismissal order (Document #152) of Case 8:05-cv-00642-MLG on page 35: "Although Plaintiff’s initial criticisms centered on his opinion that WebCT was inaccessible to students with disabilities and violated various statues, Plaintiff presented no evidence of any kind to support such assertions in the lawsuit. Instead, Plaintiff limited his claims to Defendant’s alleged failure to accommodate him and its alleged retaliation against him. He presented no evidence and did not argue that WebCT itself was discriminatory."[2][3] [4]"
Above is some of the text that was deleted by SxBrown and which Spellman reverted.and led to the edit war which caused the article to be protected. It clearly states that the Plaintiff stated no evidence as to whether WebCT was inaccessible to students with disabilities and limited his claims to Capella's refusal to accommodate his disability. This would tend to show that WebCT was not the issue, Capella was. This again makes the case that the dismissal of this lawsuit is irrelevant to WebCT. Additionally, a discussion board is not a reliable reference, especially one populated by contributors named "Capella Rocks" which might just be Spellman's alter ego. I have seen Spellman delete text based on discussion board sources before. e.g. [[5]], this time perhaps it was agreeable because he agreed with what it said.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely, Mysteryquest. It would appear that Wikipedia is being used to promote someone’s personal agenda, instead of providing unbiased information about an article. I cannot find a single reason why a lawsuit against Capella University, especially lawsuit that was dismissed, has anything to do with an article about WebCT. Wikipedia is not the place to post information about every insignificant lawsuit that has been ever been filed. Sxbrown (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing vandalism and hostile behavior has been reported to Wikipedia. WebCT was not a party to the lawsuit.Sxbrown (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging in hostile behavior. I am sorry if you feel that way. I guess I will have to wait for three days to make the necessary corrects to the article. HAve a good noght.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Sxbrown on this one. This software's only connection to the lawsuit was being the choice unfortunate enough to have been used by the actual target of the lawsuit. I think for the same reason we don't include a list of every vehicular manslaughter case in an article about the car that was being driven, there is no valuable information on WebCT that is added by including this lawsuit. In other words, this article is here so people who hear about WebCT can find out more about it, not to mention every time it's appeared in the news. Anyway, the only possibly relevant information from that source is that WebCT has been accused of being inaccessible to disabled persons. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: inaccessible is my point.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you could say it's been accused of precisely that. You don't need to discuss the lawsuit a single iota. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After watching this unfold, and also noticing that the dispute started up again almost immediately after the page was unprotected, I'll agree with Sxbrown's edits here. It doesn't seem that WebCT was the focus of the lawsuit, so it seems undue weight to incude it on the WebCT article in such a prominent way. Redrocket (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I am here due to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please note that Third Opinons should be requested only for disputes involving more than two editors. I see more than two participating above.

That said, all I can do is add yet another opinion that will hopefully lead to a consensus. I agree that the lawsuit need not be mentioned in this article. However, in the context of criticism, the lawsuit might deserve a small mention - no more than a sentence - as an example of criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Amatulić clearly indicated Third Opinions shouldn't be requested for disputes involving more than two editors, and this article is the subject of much debate. He has done a fine job of coming in, weighing the evidence, and giving his opinion, but he freely admits the situation. His is just another opinion on the page, and as such, shouldn't be taken as a hard and fast ruling on consensus. The overwhelming consensus on this page is against the mention, and Spellmanloves67's comments that the matter is decided are not accurate.[6] Redrocket (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is lawsuit section relevant[edit]

Add

Is information about a lawsuit against Capella University relevant to the article? Sxbrown (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Independent RfC comment. Unless I'm missing something, the case was dismissed, and WebCT was a non-party anyway. If that's right, the answer is "absolutely not." Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As I wrote in my Third opinion response above, it isn't relevant except possibly in the context of an example of criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As so many independent Wikipedia editors have already decided, mention of a the non-relevant lawsuit is not needed. For clarification, here is what others have already stated about the matter -


Someguy1221 (talk) - "This software's only connection to the lawsuit was being the choice unfortunate enough to have been used by the actual target of the lawsuit. I think for the same reason we don't include a list of every vehicular manslaughter case in an article about the car that was being driven, there is no valuable information on WebCT that is added by including this lawsuit. In other words, this article is here so people who hear about WebCT can find out more about it, not to mention every time it's appeared in the news.
Amatulić (talk) - "I agree that the lawsuit need not be mentioned in this article."
Cool Hand (Luke) - "Unless I'm missing something, the case was dismissed, and WebCT was a non-party anyway. If that's right, the answer is 'absolutely not.'"
It should be very clear as to what other editors have decided. Sxbrown (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No — I think the car/manslaughter case analogy is quite apt. --Haemo (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You win JPL. I know why you don't want it here.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Wikipedia should not go out of its way to draw negative attention to people or companies based on sources that appear irrelevant. I also like Someguy1221's example of the car/manslaughter case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Really really out of date guys,there doesn't appear to be a single working link on this aritcle. Spud Hai/watidone 07:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on WebCT. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WebCT. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WebCT. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WebCT. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WebCT&oldid=1202932994"