Talk:Promethean World

Removed the product list - to focus on company history and innovations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.85.39 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to not make a company page to support researching not read like an advert. JUst Removed any benefits statements in order to focus on facts.Ricktt (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added content on this company which is growing quickly and is now a major UK technology exporter.

I am aware many teachers and IT staff are researching the Interactive Whiteboard area given the rapid growth of Interactive Whiteboard technology schools particularly in the UK and USA and the emerging research into their impacts on learning gains.

I believe they are notable by both their rapid gain of market share (according to Decision Tree Consulting - an independent research company) and their numerous major awards for innovation and products.

They also remain cutting edge from a technology perspective and have mainstream developments relating to the emerging field of multi-touch interfaces that justify the development of this section to track progress.

Hopefully all the tone is good for Wikipedia. I will review and update with additional citations and references etc, when I get a chance.Ricktt (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm an ex-teacher who has used Promethean's products for many years. I don't work for Promethean or one of their direct competitors, but I am in the educational IT industry. I've got to say, this article felt very strongly like a big advert for the company. If you compare it to their main competitor Smart, which is strongly criticised in the discussion for this reason too, I'd say this article is even more so. I've removed the major focus on awards they have received - I feel its this that primarily gives it the flavour of a commerical press release. Instead, I've kept the references with a briefer mention in an earlier section.

I appreciate the difficulty though we have in making this article seem unbiased - its hard to get well referenced material about a company like this. Industry awards have to be taken with a really big pinch of salt, they can't be given so much focus in an encyclopedia article. Bwatnot uk (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Very POV
I'm surprised how much like an advert this still reads, and there are absolutely no external links-- everything links back directly to Promethean. In the "2007: ActivExpression Student Contribution Devices" section it reads: "Confidence and Agreement, self-evaluation scales are designed to enable teachers to have learners apply higher order thinking skills in their lessons and stimulate discussion about the processes of learning." This is not only markety, but very POV. If Promethean is going to edit their own page, they should at least attempt to be neutral. SmeeMcKy (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the likes of Decision Tree Consulting are not independent sources of information. This organisation is a commerical one which often earns its income from industry commissions. As with industry awards, a big pitch of salt is required here. Bwatnot uk (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have amended this page to reflect the activities of Promethean and attempted to remove any "advertising speak". Please let me know what you all think.

EmilyBird (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Emily Bird
 * Too promotional, reverted. If you have a conflict of interest, ie work for the company, you should not really be editing the article.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. As mentioned above, this is an important company in the local area and the Wikipedia article should reflect this fact.EmilyBird (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Odd that you have only edited this article with management speak and a catalogue like list of products then.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No conflict of interest eh? .--J3Mrs (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)