Talk:Computational thinking

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agendreau24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Computational Thinking Resources
This section needs to be updated and could include many more resources Agendreau24 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence
I don't know what's going on but the lead sentence (definition of CT) was changed by someone to a book by Wang (50 citations) instead of the previous definition by Wing (10.000 citations) or Aho (750 citations). I edited out Wang's and replaced with Aho's (just because Wing in her definition quotes Aho's). Why anyone would want to define it by Wang's book makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.90.95 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes article
New York Times article could be used to expand/source. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computational thinking. 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/20110831030051/http://thinkct.losrios.edu/ to http://thinkct.losrios.edu/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic Blocking
Hi IceWelder. The information about the abstraction/automation/analysis is legitimate and NOT Citation spam NOR original work. This is peer reviewed, cited and multi author research. Is there some strange agenda here or some general academic mobbing or hostility? Is Wikipedia no longer interested in quality content? This article is full of issues that need urgent fixing. What is the source of this new hostility. Lets please focus onto content and quality. To all the Wiki editors, please, if you are not familiar with the academic world read this Relationships_with_academic_editors Thank you for helping.

11:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA14:4581:6B00:7969:5A7A:BDEF:C686 (talk)
 * Consider also the following guidelines:
 * WP:REFSPAM:
 * WP:SELFCITE:
 * Adding "another characterization" based on your research does not appear to contribute to the already poor quality of the article. You are edit-warring and repeatedly assume bad faith in other users' edits. Neither contributes to making the article objectively better or more comprehensive. An admin blocked your account for performing promotional edits. As a topical expert, please do as the essay you cite recommends: Work with an established Wikipedian knowledgeable in the topic. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

CT is a movement, really
I liked what di Sessa said in Kafai's interview some time ago: CT should be seen as a movement above all. Maybe someone could add that

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-022-00754-w 91.157.90.158 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Computer practice
5 categories of computational thinking 41.121.20.145 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)