Talk:Confidence-based learning

POV
Although informative, the article does not feel neutral, but slanted in favor of the subject. That's why I've added the POV template. I hope someone who has more knowledge about this subject than me can edit it to feel more in accordance with NPOV. Entheta (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV Response
I hope I am doing this right. A colleague of mine posted information on Confidence-Based Learning and how the methodology is being used to change some traditional approaches to training. I will review the NPOV criteria and edit the document accordingly. The intent was more about the work of James Bruno and how the confidence-based learning methodology was developed. It was not meant to be slanted but more informative about the use of a confidence metric and a correctness metric to determine gaps in knowledge. Dr. Bruno had developed an approach where in a single response to a question, the two metrics are generated simultaneously. Since I have spend several years working on this process, I will edit the document accordingly. Thank you for pointing this out. Masterychef (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV Response
I am using CBL for the last four months and do not find any discrepancy between my experience on CBL and what the article says. The article correctly reflects the research and it's outcome. However, since I have commercial interest in CBL, I too may be biased. --Kksengupta (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)