Talk:ELearning 2.0

Horrible shape
This article is in horrible shape. It reads more like a discussion page than an article. With a recent CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/27/e.learning.dispute.ap/index.html on e-learning, much clean-up could be accomplished. If no one who holds the subject near-and-dear takes it on in a day or two, I will rewrite most of it.Patrick Berry 16:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't bother waiting, there's really not much here to be held "near-and-dear" :) --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this page exist?
The reason I redirected the page was because, as best I can tell, it's just a buzzword. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this goes double for neologisms. There's more on this at Avoid neologisms. Now, that said, should Wikipedia mention that the word exists, and some people have tried to hype it up? Sure. However, this can be done just fine in the Electronic learning article and in the section there. SnowFire 05:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please merge this
I completely agree. This article should be merged with Electronic Learning. Elearning 2.0 is not really much more than an expression for more interactive electronic learning and does not "deserve" its own article, since the boundaries between "regular" electronic learning and elearning 2.0 are rather blurry or don't exist at all. Please merge this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learning dave (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed that you wanted a discussion on this. I completely disagree with your point. There are significant distinctions - most notably who creates the content. This is a BIG deal in eLearning. Would you like to engage with some of the thought leaders in the discipline around this topic? I can even facilitate a discussion with the leading organization (ASTD). Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akarrer (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say merge it. Doesn't seem significant to me in its own right Petepetepetepete 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge, first of all this article is simply too short. If the topic will become notable, it could be split in WP:Summary style manner. But not before. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, all the material was already in the other article. So I just turned this one into a redirect. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An anonymous IP, who has never contributed to Wikipedia before, just undid the redirect, and obviously without contributing to this discussion, and without explanation.
 * Let's see if he or she chooses to add his or her voice here, or if anyone else wants to chime in, otherwise I'll set up the redirect again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having waited several weeks, I'm changing to a redirect again, as per the consensus on this talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)