Talk:freeCodeCamp

GitHub stars

"The freeCodeCamp community's GitHub repository is the most-starred GitHub project by a wide margin.[8]"

While this is true, I think it stems partly from a call in the FreeCodeCamp curriculum to "go to GitHub and Star our repository" which was a little controversial and has since been removed. I'm not aware of any articles about this. I heard about it after the fact in the FCC forums. I think for me to make an edit based on that would be considered original research. But I think it's important in the context of evaluating the projects 'Reception'. --Tdreid (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I read exactly the same thing in the forums. Now, what to do? Should we just remove the information about the GitHub stars? IMHO, it is inessential anyway. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best to remove it unless/until there is a secondary source to put this statistic in context. As you mentioned there are quite a few other avenues to discuss the popularity of the project.--Tdreid (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I removed it. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that the fact that they said to "go to GitHub and Star our repository" causing controversy, could be expanded into a controversy section? Just a thought @Tdreid: @Jan Schreiber: Jamesjpk (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to make sense to me. Personally I feel we need a few more controversial things to warrant a "controversy" section, but why not? -- Jan Schreiber (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Have they had any more controversy?? Mathmo ^Talk 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Sources

This page is currently only citing the subject itself, however, there sources all over the web that do not self-reference. Here are some:

• [1], Wired
• [2], Business Insider
• [3], Recruiter.com
• [4], EducationDive.com
• [5], The Changelog
• [6], Code Newbie Podcast
• [7], Software Engineering Daily
• [8], Alexa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDJAnalyst (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, all of those are clear business announcements, business profiles, mentions and all similar, which wouldn't at least satisfy our basic standard of WP:CORPDEPTH which itself states republished company information is unsuitable. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing COI discussion

I thought it might help to clarify the situation if I add that the two accounts most active in editing the article, Erictleung's and my own, are not employed by freeCodeCamp.

We wrote the article from a user perspective. We are both users of freeCodeCamp (and hence are not perfectly neutral sources, admittedly), but we aren't receiving money or any other kind of benefit from the organization. We're just users who think it might be valuable for other people to know about freeCodeCamp.

If it helps, I am not a rogue account trying to push a certain subject. I've been a regular contributor to the German Wikipedia for twelve years now. -- Jan Schreiber (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion @Jan Schreiber:, there is a fourm where there is a request for an article made for this company. The company itself did not put out the request, members of the community put it out. No one is getting paid, or benefited from the article's creation, or maintenance.

See Also:

• Fourm Post Where Request Was Made
• I am an editor with a potential COI with this subject, as I am a (new) member of freeCodeCamp. I may make changes to the article, and try to keep a neutral point of view. If you find an area where I am not neutral on this article, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks!

Jamesjpk (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Long overdue mention on this talk page by myself personally, but as @Jan Schreiber: has mentioned above, I am one of the editors who has contributed a lot of changes to the freeCodeCamp page and just wanted to be transparent in my involvement with freeCodeCamp. Again to re-emphasize this fact, I nor many of the volunteers are not paid by freeCodeCamp to make edits to this page or contribute to the project itself.

I have recently started contributing to Wikipedia in general this past year (Special:Contributions/Erictleung), where I've now contributed to topics related to computational biology. In terms of my involvement with freeCodeCamp as an organization, I've contributed to freeCodeCamp's 2016 new coder survey, their repository on how to contribute to open source, the main freeCodeCamp repository itself, a recent software tool to help generate correctly formatted git messages, and the 2017 new coder survey.

I aim to be as objective as possible when contributing edits to this page. If my edits seem biased in any way, feel free to reach out or make necessary changes yourself to make it objective and neutral in tone. Thanks! Erictleung (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Gas sensor

Gas sensor coding for audrino 2409:408D:596:B9A8:C5CA:CA9C:138E:FC73 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this work 2409:408D:596:B9A8:C5CA:CA9C:138E:FC73 (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)