Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social software in education

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : The consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion, so I am withdrawing the nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social software in education

Reads like an original research paper. proposed deletion challenged by article's creator on article's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, as original research, per nomination. A potential article on the subject might be written, and the author of this piece might be well placed to do it; but this text is not an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Smerdis. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article is well-sourced, and the author clearly knows his stuff. I agree with Smerdis, though, that it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. But I'm going to WP:AGF and assume that, once the author familiarizes himself with pages like WP:MOS, WP:OR (WP:SYN in particular), and WP:SS, he can modify the article so that it sounds more encyclopedic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike notes the following on my talk page:

I don't think you have come to the right place, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of scientific treatises; according to one of the core Wikipedia policies, original research is outside the project's scope. Since you have challenged the article's deletion, I am going to nominate it for a full debate at Social software in education. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I ask what if an article is a guide to original research, and particularly what that research has to say on a practical level? In the case of the article concerned, an extraction of original research and how it applies to the field of educational technology. This is a central question for me because, as funded work, the Association for Learning Technology has constructed a series of nine guides on what research has to say for educational practice, and seeks to disseminate these via various media, Wikipedia included.

By way of analogy, what if I researched, say, Chile from original sources, and then wrote an article on the country and its geography? Not that different to researching educational practice using social software from original sources (themselves research papers) and then wrote an article about educational practice using social software informed by those resources?

I am going to suspend editing on this first article until I hear back as to if Wikipedia is a suitable home for these guides. For this time there may be less than encyclopedic language int he contribution. A note by email to mark.van.harmelen -at- alt.ac.uk would be handy too please once the community decides what to do. Markvanharmelen (talk)

Comment: I think the main problem here is that you write too well. Wikipedia has a lot of good writers, to be sure, but the trick (a talent in itself) is for them to restrain their talent when writing encyclopedic articles. For example, you begin with an excellent rhetorical hook: "When did software become social? One could argue that..." But encyclopedic material is a bit dryer than that. Just state the facts (organize them, of course, but avoid synthesizing them), keeping the manual of style in mind, and source the facts as often as you can. Whenever you feel like you're getting really involved, whenever you feel like you're achieving your creative potential, whenever you feel like it's really you doing the writing...stop, because you may be approaching things too originally for an encyclopedia. You are correct that "an article is a guide to original research," but the article can't be original research--that is, the language of the "guide" must be generic enough that your "voice" as a writer doesn't really show through. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-written, well-sourced article. But please be aware of WP:COI. - Atmoz (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR, but the article is in fact different from our standard. It's too formal, and it's referenced in too much detail. This is an unsophisticated place for publication. I'm not saying to dumb it down exactly, but... DGG (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note from person posting Hopefully the balance is moving towards keep. I am not the author, but merely the poster, and the initial editor of this contribution. In fact, I was ready to edit this contribution into something more encyclopedic when Mike started the deletion-decision process on this page, so I've held off doing any edits. I suggest that I continue this process within some kind of good faith arrangement that I will do so. Is that OK? And I'll also read the guidance material that you suggest here. Thanks, Markvanharmelen (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.