Talk:List of learning management systems

Untitled
There is a much more complete list of learning management systems and other eLearning tools at www.trimeritus.com/vendors.pdf. I am the owner of this site.Dktrigeek (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncategorized discussions
Need to have a better criteria for what pages to show/not show. It was suggested before to only list LMS's that have a Wikipedia page of their own. Also, I'm including below some comments that were pasted inline instead of added to the discussion. DISCLAIMER: I am a co-founder of Instructure, an LMS company. Personally I'd rather include some of the new LMS products even though they don't have Wikipedia pages yet, but obviously my opinion is biased.Brian.whitmer (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Notable" seems like a pretty subjective term (Notable Learning Management Systems is the first header). Other lists seems to separate into "Commercial" and "Open Source". Seems to me that would be a better categorization. Brian.whitmer (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Does Fedena fit better in the open-source list or in the commercial list? It's an open-source product, it looks like, that is backed by a commercial company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.whitmer (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be some dispute on this page as to whether or not to include company pages on this list if the product doesn't have its own page. Dokeos, Sakai Project, eCollege, Instructure, Learn.com, Spiral Universe, Thinking Cap are all Vitalect are all LMS companies whose products don't have standalone wikipedia articles. What is the best course of action? Keep these links, remove the links, or rename the headers to allow inclusion of these company pages? Some of these products (Sakai, eCollege) are majoy players in the market and it seems inaccurate to not include them. I recommend allowing for the inclusion of these company pages provided one of their main products is an LMS (as is the case with all these listed). Disclaimer: I'm a co-founder of Instructure. 174.23.246.14 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If a commercial LMS without a wikipedia page is not allowed in this list, then it should be made known that the list is censored (e.g. include this in caption:  "that have a wikipedia article").


 * No, it's not about censoring. It's about the fact that wikipedia has criteria that determine what should and should not be included.   Probably the most relevant policy here is WP:NOT, which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a directory and not an indiscriminate list of information.  We need some sort of criteria for inclusion.  While I haven't dealt specifically with lits of corporations before, a good standard we have used on lists of people is that either the (person/company) must have its own page, or there must be a reliable source (that means, an independent source, like a newspapare or journal article, and not a press release) that verifies that the company does in fact sell these products (in a more than passing fashion).  So, without references, I recommend removing all of the above links.  Qwyrxian (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By "without references", do you mean "if it doesn't have a wikipedia page" or do you mean that you recommend removing the entire list of links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.167.13 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that if either one of two things is true, it can be on the list 1) The company has it's own Wikipedia page. 2) A reliable, independent source verifies (in a more than passing way) that the company makes a Learning Management Systems product. Any company which for which we cannot meet one of those two criteria should be removed.  Otherwise, what's to stop any random person from adding any random company that may or may not exist and may or may not produce this type of product?  We need verification for any statement that might reasonably be challenged, and the inclusion on a list of this type can easily be challenged.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that an external link to a legitimate LMS will be allowed on this list so long as it is verified by some independent source, right? If so, who is this independent source and what are their criteria for verification?  Also, how would any future list editor (such as yourself) know that the link has been blessed and should not be removed?  Practically speaking, I think that an external link could easily be verified by any interested person whether or not the link was legitimate.  If the page didn't have information about an LMS, it could be removed, otherwise it would be left as is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.167.13 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Independent reliable sources are defined in WP:RS--this means things like news magazines, academic journals, trade publications (although press releases don't count), etc. I'm not saying that the issue is whether or not it's legitimately a link to the company. I'm saying that, Wikipedia is not a directory or sales catalog or list of indiscriminate information--all of that is covered in WP:NOT. Our goal here is not to exhaustively list every single company on some List page somewhere in WP. We want reliable, verified information. And the way a "future list editor" knows is that I'm saying that the reference needs to be included right in the article, using a citation. Personally, my opinion is that List articles shouldn't include anything that doesn't have it's own Wikipedia page, but that is perhaps a little more extreme than consensus right now, which is why reliable sources can be sufficient. So a person can't just add a corporate link and "imply" that there's a reliable source--the need to put that reliable source on Wikipedia, either here or at the company's article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all LMS known of should be listed here, or change the name of the article to refect the subset that is listed. Otherwise, Wikipedia is insular. Spacefarer (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Consistency and list criteria
If you are going to be consistent you should go to List of help authoring tools and delete the external link entries there without Wikipedia pages too.Cyberplasm (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No thanks; I have no interest in that article and no desire to spend my own time editing articles about topics that I don't care about. But thanks for the suggestion and the observation!  Hopefully someone else will take you up on it (or you could do so yourself). ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Herewith a kick-off with a list of criteria

SvenAERTS (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears that entries using the Wikipedia markup brackets, but without actual pages, will remain, but not those with outside links. Cyberplasm (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Instructure is the company name, not the LMS. The LMS for the company is Canvas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.36.2 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of other wikipedia pages that don't require "notability" requirements, for example Comparison of Survey Software. Why is this list different and who gets to decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and trimmed List of help authoring tools, and will be happy to trim spam from any other page that needs it. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that doesn't answer my question. My example was for Comparison_of_survey_software not help authoring tools.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And Comparison of survey software has also been cleaned up. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are still entries in the Comparison_of_survey_software Developer column that don't have wikipedia pages, yet they remain in the list. Why do they remain, yet you remove similar entries in this list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I limited it to entries where either the company or the product has an entry on wikipedia. Typically one or the other is notable enough to merit inclusion. Werieth (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I like how entry in SAAS/CLOUD learning management systems segment has a link that does not have a wikipedia page, but is allowed to remain. Very consistent as usual! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was recently AfD'ed Articles_for_deletion/TOPYX_Social_LMS_(2nd_nomination). I have removed it. Werieth (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014
Current content under subheading: == Open source learning management systems == Incorrect Entry:
 * Totara LMS

Suggested Correction: Move entry to SAAS or Proprietary. Alternatively include information regarding the limitations of the product.

Reasons: Violates terms 1 and 2 of the OSI definition of Open Source.

Additional information: Totara's FAQ suggests that they offer the product as a "Commercial Open Source" (verbatim; ). However, this again goes against the usage of the term Open Source as per OSI guidelines.

References:

Nishanttimothy (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Nishant Timothy

TotaraLMS is a derivative of Moodle, i.e. Moodle with some adaptations that they don't distribute openly in the spirit of the GPL. It is technically within the GPL licence. However, the Moodle community and MoodleHQ have taken exception to Totara's behaviour. As a result and out of frustration with Totara, MoodleHQ published a "snapshot" of TotaraLMS on Github


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I see your argument, but we need a reliable source which says they are not open source, since they claim their approach complies with OSI. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014
Please add " * TOPYX " under " * eLearning Platform " in the " == SAAS/CLOUD learning management systems == " section.

75.39.82.63 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Education vs. Corporate Re-organization Proposal
I propose reorganizing the list to separate corporate LMS products from educational (K12/higher ed) LMS products. Products like Taleo and SAP are fundamentally different than products like Edmodo and Schoology. I'm happy to do this if there are no objections. Analogstats (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)