Talk:Learning platform

Merge?

This strikes me as content that could be merged into an existing article, but I'm not sure which. Any thoughts? Dawn Bard 15:28:20 2009-04-30

Some good stuff here, lets not toss it out but migrate it across. I reckon it could go into the Virtual Learning Environment page. --Rgesthuizen (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After over 3 years it's time to start sorting out all of this. This article has significant problems:

Article content includes the statement, "Throughout this article the terms Learning Platform and VLE are used in an inter-changeable way." Why then does Wikipedia have this page since it has a page on VLE?
And there's yet another WP article on LMS? And another WP article on Content management system? And another on Personal learning environments as well as one addressing History of personal learning environments, and an article on multimedia learning, and another on E-learning, which is distinct from one on Edtech?
This article appears to be written from an unduly narrow professional viewpoint, speculatively that of a British school teacher or someone with that type of focus. Perhaps because of this, it contains considerable outdated and irrelevant British local and central government trivia.
It is filled with various opinions, theories, and political posturings, but in its meandering it obscures its incisive understandable points that inform the general reader. These concerns cause the article title to be significantly misleading.
IMO, the encyclopedic tone is "off." For example, what are we to make on section headers that read, "Common Learning Function Functionality"? Or of passages that read, "In the absence of any or many other theories..." ... ? Or of meandering content that purports to be background but which attempts to begin a technology article with a reasonably written but irrelevantly discursive overview of "Theories of learning" without any attempt to link to other relevant WP articles?
The article has a lengthy and often non-contextualized list of "references." Some inline references are given. Unfortunately, on initial review the references often speak vaguely to the contention made or are mildly variant from the "cited" concepts. In short, things are not properly meeting WP:RS. Many citations have minor errors, some are just plain wrong, and to a considerable extent the content is only tenuously connected to the overwhelmingly expansive list of external "sources."
Overall, the content and approach are both quite strange for an international encyclopedia. The work product reads like a long-winded essay. It needs to be substantially culled and some of it should be distributed to appropriate related articles.

In summary, the article is both redundant and is a troublesome if subtle (or not so subtle) form of WP:SYNTH. I am embarking on a gradual trimming of the content. I will start to trim this article, with a view to eventual merging to the VLE page. Feedback suggestions or concerns are of course welcome. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the process explained above. I will now pause for a week or so, to see if other editors have other input or concerns. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming edits after pausing to see if other editors have other input or concerns. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now well into a merge with several related articles, principally to VLE, although appropriate content has been moved to other articles. Please see edit history for where content was transferred. A formal redirect to VLE will be added when this article gets close to final close out. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it done in just under 4 years. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]