Talk:Blackboard Learn


This page appears scrubbed of past controversies. Considering the incentive for doing so, it was probably done by someone working for the company. --Agreed, the criticism section seemed well written. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Charles nelson reilly (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Charles Nelson Reilly

I'm a newbie here, can somebody add redirect to this article from "blackboard lms" query and make soft infobox with current version, license and so on? Amalitsky (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any record of the scrubbed content, or a way to reinstate it?

As a graduate student and a teacher, I use blackboard at my university, and everyone has complaints about it. I was surprised then to check out this page and see no note of criticism. Now I know why, but im not happy about it. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Avian Obscurities (talk o contribs) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


No references to show that this is notable. Delete? According to wikipedia's principles, no organization or product is notable simply because it exists.

Perhaps it's notable for how long it has lasted in the market, or how it's gobbled up several competitors?

Criticism Section

Blackboard is slow, unreliable, ancient, and very poor software. There needs to be a criticism section on it. Doshindude (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Blackboard has been in the news lately for its unreliability, a mention of this has been added to the "controversy" section. --comment added by Charles nelson reilly (talk o contribs) 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

the features read like a product brochure. this posting should be edited, or deleted --Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackboard's unreliability at an institution can be traced to one thing and one thing only: its configuration by local system administrators. You can buy all of the top notch building supplies in the world, but if you don't have someone knowledgeable enough to put it all together properly, you will likely end up with an poorly-built house. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmorkin (talk o contribs) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of criticism published in the media, this section should be expanded. There has also been criticism of e-learning in general. Unfortunately, universities are being forced into these systems, which do a poor job of serving the students and often backfire as costs spiral. (the premise of lowering costs doesn't always pan out) Danski14(talk) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a small chance that the claim that Blackboard is unreliable is due to poor local system administration. However, the fact remains that it is extremely slow and often unreliable even using the company's hosting, whose systems are provided by the company. So it's inarguably their fault. Additionally, the UI to Blackboard is quite poor and the price is high, all of which are some of the reasons Canvas is taking over their market share. --Paultparker (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism is valid (and as a Bb power-user and sysad for over 15 years, I've done a LOT of complaining about the system), but it needs to be specific. Comments such as "it's slow and unreliable" or "the UI is poor" are a) subjective, b) unhelpfully comparative (slow, poor, etc. *compared to what*?) and are therefore about as useful as "I don't like it." IOW, they are meaningless. I'll add some that I consider actually valid. Cjbergeron (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Coopman article is just a screed against "power structures" in traditional classrooms, using Bb as a whipping boy because the system supports the way that most faculty teach. It's invalid as a criticism of the product IMO. Indeed, MOST of the criticism section dates back five years or more. The system has changed A LOT in those five years. Cjbergeron (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

major revert

I reverted the article back to a state before the edits of User: After trying to undo some deletions, the references were all messed up. I'll be going back and adding some of the more relevant content. aprock (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd tone, especially when compared to the Moodle article

This article seems to be particularly negative and the suggestion of how sites have moved to Moodle in the final section seems very odd.

I think product pages should simply describe the product and its maker and leave positive or negative remarks out. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason Blackboard should be excluded from criticism. A criticism section is included in most pages and many software pages. If many users feel it should be criticized, which is evident from the above, why should resource censor that? -- Paultparker (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blackboard Learn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the , on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.--cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Connect with defaultLogic
What We've Done
Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.
Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.
Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.
Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.
Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.

Manage research, learning and skills at defaultLogic. Create an account using LinkedIn or facebook to manage and organize your Digital Marketing and Technology knowledge. defaultLogic works like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.

  Contact Us