Talk:Perusall

No CoI statement

I have no conflicts of interest, no stake in this product/company--nor do I know any of the people who created it or run it. I did once use Perusall as a student at Harvard University, which I note only in the interests of full disclosure. By comparison, if a student used Blackboard at Cornell University in 1999, and then wrote an Wiki article about it, I doubt that would constitute a conflict of interest, but I want to be transparent. Please add tags and do all the cool bot things I don't know how to do. Also, point me in the direction of editors who can help (please). Josh a brewer (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sections

As I continue to add research, I can see that this article needs sections. I'm open to suggestions, but it seems as if there should be the lede, followed by a "History" or "Background" section, and then I could imagine either an "Applications" section and/or a section on AI or algorithmic grading. In terms of notability, this last thing is really what makes the software significant, so it should be emphasized. Josh a brewer (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I added sections. I'm open to suggestions when it comes to combining, collapsing, or expanding these. Josh a brewer (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved from article

I've updated this article, which now contains even more scholarship from independent, reliable, verifiable, peer-reviewed sources. I believe it is now publishable, but if not, I would appreciate feedback, including how to add to the 8-10 quality sources that I've already found. Josh a brewer (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to revise and resubmit this Perusall article for consideration. I read your rejection of the draft, and I have some questions. Are 5 independent, scholarly sources too few? If so, how many will work? I included articles published in the Journal of Educators Online; College Teaching; Frontiers in Education; Qwerty: Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education; and the Journal of Political Science Education. They have no connection to Harvard or Perusall. Is the problem that you want me to exclude sources connected to Harvard? That seems unnecessary, since there are already so many great sources cited here, but I can do that. There are dozens of peer-reviewed articles on Perusall, so I'm not sure why it matters if there's a mixture of types of sources here--websites, scholarly journal articles, and statements of the PhD professors who made the thing. Especially the latter seems relevant, because these statements can be cited without creating bias. You cite Edison in an article about the lightbulb, right? Plenty of articles cite in this manner. In addition to the sources listed above, I cited other sources--some from universities and some from PhDs--none of whom are related to Harvard or Perusall directly (or in any way that I can discover). My stub shouldn't be considered perfected, true, but please compare it to the Hypothes.is article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothes.is), and I think you'll find it nearly that successful already. Josh a brewer (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've updated this article, which now contains even more scholarship from independent, peer-reviewed sources. I believe it is now publishable, but if not, I would appreciate feedback, including how to add to the 8-10 quality sources that I've already found. Josh a brewer (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)