Ematusov

Welcome!

Hello, Ematusov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Melcous (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dialogic learning. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dialogic pedagogy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dialogic pedagogy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://dialogicpedagogy.pbworks.com/w/page/106164477/Dialogic%20Pedagogy. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Melcous (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dialogic pedagogy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible paradigmatic differences with Melcous

Dear Melcous–

You raised the following three concerns about my page Dialogic Pedagogy that I do not fully understand: 1. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2017) 2. This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (May 2017) 3. This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (May 2017) I may not understand because I’m very new to Wikipedia – this is my first page – or because you and I have different paradigm regarding Wikipedia. I’d appreciate your reply, patience, and guidance.

It seems to me that Wikipedia tries to be an authoritative text about the subject – an approximation of universal truth. Am I right? If not, please correct me. If so, I understand why you are demanding a genre of impersonal, decontextualized, “objective” language, expressed in your rubrics #1 and #2 above. In contrast to this paradigm, dialogic pedagogy that we try to articulate here is inspired by Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin, who argued against the authoritative, positivist, monologic, decontextualized, objective paradigms behind classical encyclopedia genre. In contrast, Bakhtin argued for personal, authorial, subjective, unfinalized (and unfinalizable), open-minded inquiries “where truth is tested and forever is testable.” This is a genre of my article. Writing in the classical encyclopedia genre, which you seem to demand (points #1 and #2), defeats the notion of the Bakhtinian dialogism and dialogic pedagogy that we try to articulate in the article. Behind our article, there is a growing international academic community of 450+ educational researchers and practitioners united by the peer-reviewed online international journal of Dialogic Pedagogy (please see http://dpj.pitt.edu). I’m the Editor-in-Chief of this journal. If my description, analysis, and judgment of your paradigm and genre demands are correct, I respectfully ask you for diversity and tolerance of diverse paradigms and genres on the Wikipedia. I wonder if you may be interested in bringing my concern to the Wikipedia’s organizers and leaders for their collective consideration. I think Wikipedia is a terrific democratic public project that should be based on paradigmatic plurality and tolerance, reflected in plurality and tolerance to the genres.

This paradigmatic tension also leads to your feedback based on generic, decontextualized application of pre-designed rubrics (like Platonic ideas), based on your personal tacit authorial judgments and concerns, which can be very interesting and important for me. It can be very useful for me, if you contextualized your concerns by making comments on the margins of my article (if it is possible). If it is not possible, can you put my article in Word, please, and make your comments there, please? You can send it to me via attachment (ematusov@udel.edu). I’d highly appreciate your help.

Finally, about #3. I plan to work on external linking of the article (I already linked it to Dialogic Learning wiki article, unless you took it off) after we resolve your concerns #1 and #2. Also, we plan to introduce more articles of the field of the Bakhtinian dialogism that are not currently presented on the Wikipedia. How many external connections make it not an orphan?

Sincerely,

Eugene Matusov

---

Eugene Matusov, PhD Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Professor of Education School of Education 16 W Main st University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716, USA

Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/

---

Hi Eugene, thank you for your message here and on my talk page. I'm not really interested in getting in to a long discussion with you about about every detail of the article, but a few thoughts on the key issues you have raised that might be useful:

• I don't think you have 'paradigmatic differences' with me individually, but rather perhaps you do with wikipedia as a project. (Note that the message and templates I have pointed you to were not written by me, but are guidelines accepted by wikipedia editors as a community). I'm not sure that wikipedia aims to be "an approximation of universal truth" but it certainly IS an encyclopedia. So when you say "Writing in the classical encyclopedia genre, which you seem to demand (points #1 and #2), defeats the notion of the Bakhtinian dialogism and dialogic pedagogy that we try to articulate in the article" I'm not sure what else to say to you other than that perhaps this is not the right place for you to be writing. You can read a simple outline of what wikipedia is here with plenty of links to further explanations.
• Wikipedia thereby works by reporting what reliable, third party sources say about a topic. Which means that original research is not accepted and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Without having time to go through everything in the current dialogic pedagogy article, just in the opening paragraph, for example, phrases like "is defined as ..." and "Of course, ..." indicate a type of writing that doesn't seem to fit with these key criteria.
• Wikipedia is written for the widest possible audience, not for experts in a field. So articles should give clear and simple explanations for a reader who does not know anything about a topic, rather than aim to give an academic presentation on a topic. At present, the article provides no wider context for a lay reader and reads more like an academic essay than an encyclopedia article, hence my adding of the maintenance templates to flag these issues.
• Finally, you talk about the Dialogic Pedagogy article using phrases like "my page", "my article" and "our article" above. One clear guideline of wikipedia is that articles are not owned by anyone, and thus can and will be edited by anyone. If you want an article that expresses your point of view on the topic and is managed and overseen by your group, then there are plenty of other websites where you can do that, but wikipedia is not one of them. You can read a lot more about what wikipedia is not here.
• It would be great if you could take time to read through wikipedia's core guidelines and decide whether you feel can abide by them or whether your aims in writing are different to that of the project.

Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)