Talk:Wooclap

Research section

Hello all! I wanted to discuss the Research section on this page. Is it necessary for this section to be so large? It seems a bit promotional in tone and I am wondering if the information could/should be condensed?

Let me know if anyone else has any other thoughts. Fabiola718 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. As per WP:PROPORTION, there is probably undue weight given to research. Stormgaze (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

This page has repeatedly been the target of attempts to add promotional material. See discussion here, here, and here. Most recently, this IP has modified the Wooclap article with excessive amounts of praise and a disproportional focus on dubious research studies (WP:PROPORTION also relevant here). This same user also put references to Wooclap to unrelated articles.

I would also like to add that multiple accounts have been created to tamper with Wooclap.

I have reverted most promotional material and added citation needed notices. This page has also been semi-protected for 2 days. Stormgaze (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed sourcing improvements and content updates

I was contacted by Wooclap to update their English Wikipedia page in exchange for payment, following the encyclopedia's best practices, including Wikipedia:NPOV. Since I have a conflict of interest with the company, I am submitting my suggested changes to the community to seek their input and approval before editing the page. I would like to thank in advance everyone who takes the time to read my suggestions. I suggest @MrOllie could review this suggestion if he has time.

Start of requests

1 - Citations needed

I found these sources to support the information on this page.

• Information “Launched in 2015, Wooclap was founded by Jonathan Alzetta and Sébastien Lebbe” > Reference:
• Information “engineers from the École Polytechnique in Brussels.” > References:
• Information “In 2023, Wooclap integrated artificial intelligence features, which can be used to create various questions and polls.” Reference:

2 - Broken link

The link [7] is broken: https://www.jle.com/download/abc-315070-43158-interactive_pedagogic_tools_evaluation_of_three_assessment_systems_in_medical_education-a.pdf

Here is the good one:

3 - Sentences to add

Before the Research section, add this sentence: In February 2024, Wooclap and its co-founder Sébastien Lebbe announced the appointment of a new chief executive: Baudouin Corman. Reference:

4 - Infobox update

Items to add:

• Country of origin: Belgium
• Founders: Sébastien Lebbe - Jonathan Alzetta
• CEO: Baudouin Corman
• Image: image des fondateurs Wooclap_Chairman_CEO_CTO.jpg (already on Wikimedia Commons)
• Headquarters: 4 Rue des Pères Blancs, 1040 Etterbeek, Bruxelles, Belgique

5 - Proposed neutral and objective rewording for a section

The Lille University study section is not accurate and contains approximations that I propose to correct:

• The University of Lille study examined the effectiveness not only of Wooclap but of three tools (Socrative, Votar, and Wooclap).
• The study abstract states, “The favourite apps appear to be Socrative and Votar.” However, the conclusion of the full study states, “The favourite app seems to be Socrative and Wooclap.”
• Wooclap wasn’t “criticized” for being the most expensive, it is just a statement that Wooclap is more expensive than other tested tools, but Wooclap has more features, which makes the term “more expensive” subjective.

I suggest rewriting the paragraph as follows:

In a 2019 study, Lille University compared three audience response systems, Wooclap, Socrative and Votar, in pharmacy education. The study concludes that favourite applications seemed to be Socrative and Wooclap, both scoring higher than Votar and traditional lectures on learning, understanding, participation, ease of use and tool integration, with no significant difference between the two. The study states that Wooclap included different activity types, including multiple choice questions, polls, open questions and matching exercises, as well as a live feature allowing students to signal when they are lost during class. The research found that traditional lessons still outperformed every tool tested when it came to how easily students could ask questions.

End of requests

If you think my suggested contribution could be improved, I'll do my best to respond as soon as possible to help here or on my talk page for discussion. Thank you again for your time and expertise. Crux8527 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)