Please help edit the Wikipedia article on MOOCs (before it disappears)

Maria Droujkova

unread,

Jul 27, 2011, 7:56:48 PM7/27/11

to OERu study group for EduMOOC, edu...@googlegroups.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

It got marked for deletion today, based on "not enough notability." I edited it some more, but it needs, well, notability - references to sources, mostly, as well as just content.

Cheers,
Maria Droujkova
919-388-1721

Make math your own, to make your own math

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 28, 2011, 12:35:24 AM7/28/11

to eduMOOC

Hi Maria,
Have some MOOC history in notes, quotes and references from PLENK and
CCK11 that might amount to "notability." (As a novice in the Wikipedia
world it might be wise for me to study the standards first). Is there
a place where we can collect material and go over it prior to posting
at the wiki? Or is that too timid?

Scott

Ignatia/Inge de Waard

unread,

Jul 28, 2011, 4:47:48 AM7/28/11

to OERu study group for EduMOOC, edu...@googlegroups.com

Hi Maria,

An article of mine was just published in the Learning Solutions Magazine. In the article you will find more references that relate to MOOC's. Hope this helps. I do not have a lot of time right now due to maternity leave (baby support :-D but I hope this can help you out a bit.

http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/721/explore-a-new-learning-frontier-moocs

I will also add some extra references that were used in papers that will be published in the next few months:

Bell, F. (2011) Connectivism: Its Place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technolgy-Enabled Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Volume 12, Number 3. Retrievable from web http ://www .irrodl .org /index .php /irrodl /article /view /902/1664 (accessed 20 May 2011).

Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Instructional Technology Forum: paper 92. Retrieved from web http ://it .coe .uga .edu /itforum /paper 92/paper 92.html (accessed 12 April 2011)

Downes, S. (2007). What Connectivism Is. Connectivism Conference, University of Manitoba. Retrieved from web http ://halfanhour .blogspot .com /2007/02/what -connectivism -is .html (accessed 26 May 2011)

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Volume 9, Number 3. Retrieved from web http ://www .irrodl .org /index .php /irrodl /article /view /523/1103 (accessed 18 May 2011)

Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrievable from web http ://www .lancs .ac .uk /fss /organisations /netlc /past /nlc 2010/abstracts /PDFs /Mackness .pdf (accessed 24 May 2011)

Mc Auley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G. & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf. (20th May 2011).

Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and Connectivism: A New Approach to Understanding and Proming Dialogue-Rich Networked Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Volume 12, Number 3. Retrievable from web http ://www .irrodl .org /index .php /irrodl /article /view /902/1664 (accessed 20 May 2011).

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, January 2005, Volume 2 Number 1. Retrieved from web http ://www .itdl .org /journal /jan _05/article 01.htm (accessed 18 May 2011).

BEst wishes,
Inge

_______________________________________________
OERu-EduMOOC mailing list
OERu-E...@lists.wikieducator.org
http://lists.wikieducator.org/mailman/listinfo/oeru-edumooc

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 28, 2011, 12:49:53 PM7/28/11

to eduMOOC

Hi Inge,

Wealth of material here to work with. Thanks! Not sure what the
implications are in being
"marked for deletion" but suspect it means time to get serious.

Is this the world's first Connectivist baby?

Scott Johnson

On Jul 28, 2:47 am, "Ignatia/Inge de Waard" <ingedewa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Maria,...

>
> An article of mine was just published in the Learning Solutions Magazine. In
> the article you will find more references that relate to MOOC's. Hope this
> helps. I do not have a lot of time right now due to maternity leave (baby
> support :-D but I hope this can help you out a bit.
>

> http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/721/explore-a-new-learni...

>
> I will also add some extra references that were used in papers that will be
> published in the next few months:
>
> Bell, F. (2011) Connectivism: Its Place in Theory-Informed Research and
> Innovation in Technolgy-Enabled Learning. International Review of Research
> in Open and Distance Learning. Volume 12, Number 3. Retrievable from web

> 20 May 2011).
>
> Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Instructional
> Technology Forum: paper 92. Retrieved from web

> 12 April 2011)
>
> Downes, S. (2007). What Connectivism Is. Connectivism Conference, University
> of Manitoba. Retrieved from web

> 26 May 2011)
>
> Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or
> vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance
> Learning, Volume 9, Number 3. Retrieved from web

> 18 May 2011)
>
> Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of
> participating in a MOOC. Paper presented at the Seventh International
> Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrievable from web

> 24 May 2011)
>
> Mc Auley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G. & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model

> for Digital Practice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf. (20th May 2011).

>
> Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and Connectivism: A New Approach to
> Understanding and Proming Dialogue-Rich Networked Learning. International
> Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Volume 12, Number 3.
> Retrievable from web

> http<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrodl.org%2Findex.php%2...>
> ://<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrodl.org%2Findex.php%2...>
> www<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrodl.org%2Findex.php%2...>
> .<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrodl.org%2Findex.php%2...>
> irrodl<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrodl.org%2Findex.php%2...>
> .<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irrodl.org%2Findex.php%2...>
>
> read more »

Maria Droujkova

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 12:32:16 AM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

Scott,

If you press the "edit" button on that page, the syntax will be pretty
obvious - just format parts as other parts are formatted. I see
several groups discussing or editing pieces on forums before posting
to Wikipedia, so posting a piece here for example would be
appropriate, I think.

Ignatia, thanks for the links! I will edit in the next few days.

"Marked for deletion" means you need to improve the article within the
seven days. I removed "marked for deletion" after improving the
article somewhat, with at least a couple of references, and someone
else adding a good piece to the introduction. Let's see what happens.

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 1:27:51 AM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

I am dearly hoping this is not somehow my fault. About a week ago, I
was trying to link a tutorial to a definition of a MOOC, and found the
Wikipedia page on Massive open online course. The page had been
sitting there with very little on it, and I joked to Dave Cormier in
Twitter that someone ought to do something. He suggested I had just
volunteered, so I got an account and went in and started adding the
names of some of the instructors of the MOOCs I had been in. You can
see me in the History.

I wonder if the activity somehow alerted someone.

It needs to be vastly expanded, not removed, linked to the term MOOC
for disambiguation, and also Massive Open Online Course. I am very
very new to Wikipedia.

Lisa

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 5:56:17 PM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

Lisa, if you hadn't spoken up the incompleteness would have driven it
off the web anyway and that would have been a big loss. So thanks for
getting us started and rescuing history from deletion!

Is there a direct link between connectivism and MOOCs? The Wikipedia
page
on Networked Learning >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Networked_learning<
says yes and I'll see if I can locate a non-Wikipedia reference.

More later.
Scott

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 7:05:25 PM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

Scott, the main connection between connectivism and MOOCs is that the
first named MOOC was on this topic.

The announcement for the 2008 MOOC is still here: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/?p=53
. This shows the coining of the name.

Is that the kind of thing that makes an acceptable source?

Lisa

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 7:21:23 PM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

I have added more to 2008, which I was in from the beginning. Added
Fini's study. Obviously, we need more....

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 7:48:08 PM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

OK, I've done more with EC&I, added more references, linked from both
"connectivism" and "networked learning".

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 29, 2011, 8:31:53 PM7/29/11

to eduMOOC

That's great searching Lisa. I think the page you referenced is an
excellent source. Suppose we could dig around the U of M campus and
see if there was a bronze plaque issued at the time;-)

I was going to use the U of M sponsored CCK11 as an example of a MOOC
that had tuition paying student particapation as a means of breaking
the notion that MOOCs need to be "free" to function. I'll also have a
look at the details on Bryan Alexander for more background. Did you
take the 2008 MOOC as a formal course?

Scott

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 30, 2011, 1:34:00 AM7/30/11

to eduMOOC

Yes, I was a formally enrolled student for both CCK08 (U of Manitoba)
and EC&I 831 (U of Regina).

Lisa

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 30, 2011, 2:48:03 AM7/30/11

to eduMOOC

In order to stop the "orphan" problem, I put links to Massive open
online courses in the "See also" sections of:

E-learning
Online learning community
Connectivism

I linked to Massive open online course from the phrase itself in:

Connectivism

I added the phrase and linked to it from:

George Siemens
Stephen Downes

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 30, 2011, 12:20:21 PM7/30/11

to eduMOOC

Wow! That's a lot of de-orphaning. I like the idea of connecting to
George and Stephen and would be interested in listing founders as a
sub-section. Do you think that is a good idea? Or should we stick to
trying to define what a MOOC is to help others understand what all the
fuss is about? Identifying the MOOC seems like an unresolved subject
that attracts a lot of speculation--I've been asked to report to the
teaching staff where I work on the value and meaning of MOOCs but have
gotten only as far as Scott's distorted version of reality stage.
Being defined by what the participants perceive it to be seems fine in
conversation but it doesn't make for useful comment on Wikipedia. Any
thoughts on this?

And, at some point work and life is going to resume for all of us
playing in the MOOC sandbox. Please feel free to signal in any way
that that you need to move on to other things. It seems a principal of
these particapatory classes that I for one over-participate and then
crash. And then feel guilty for just walking away. (I wonder if this
is a phenomenon worth appending to the MOOC entry?)

Off to find a few more links.

Scott

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Jul 31, 2011, 1:09:57 AM7/31/11

to eduMOOC

This is the only thing I'm doing that's connected to the eduMOOC right
now, so I won't so much as "move on" and do something else for awhile
and come back later.

If it's an encyclopedia, we should get as close as we can to defining
not only MOOC but the major issues surrounding the idea. I don't think
it's about how it's perceived so much as how it's set up, which is why
I started to focus on pedagogy. But I don't have enough information
about the systems and pedagogy used in the more recent MOOCs -- that's
where more is needed. The research that's surrounding it might be its
own category.

I'm not at all sure about "founders". In fact, putting Alec Couros as
a "pre-MOOC" person doesn't sit well with me; I may change it to Early
MOOCs. Or maybe it's just the fact that I'm a historian that has been
shying away from "first"s! :-)

Lisa

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 31, 2011, 1:38:08 PM7/31/11

to eduMOOC

You are right about the ideas behind MOOCs and the issues. I tend to
focus on ideas being locked to the people who introduced them which I
guess is closer to an historical approach? (Or a People's magazine
approach).

Have notes on PLENK2010 and the introduction page <http://
connect.downes.ca/how.htm> has the 4 major points of activity that
speak to how the course was set up.

Aggregate
Re-Mix
Re-Purpose
Feed Forward

All these look like higher order learning strategies that go beyond
absorbing to interpretation and creation of new ideas.

This also might be useful: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks
and models
<http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models
%20(Version%201).pdf>

And a blog that started giant discussion in class: <http://
jennymackness.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/attacks-on-connectivism/>

We are a bit up against there being minimal "support" for Connectivism
in the form of actual field studies--or even if it qualifies as a
theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory> which is a big stumbling
block in making claims about MOOCs.

I wonder if it's possible to decouple MOOCs from Connectivism? Is it
the only "theory" by which to create, operate, monitor and interpret
what is occuring in a MOOC? My view of the purpose behind MOOCs and
how they are constructed is that they are at the in-progress stage.
Commentary is still 99% speculation based on casual observation rather
than hard data. This makes it really difficult to define them--not
impossible, just difficult.

Glad you are keeping at this. There seems to be a sense that based on
the outer appearance of chaos that MOOCs are unknowable or without
purpose. That makes studying them all the more interesting.

Going to have a look at systems theory and large group dynamics. Might
be something useful there.

Scott

> > > Stephen Downes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Scott HJ

unread,

Jul 31, 2011, 11:27:46 PM7/31/11

to eduMOOC

On the subject of what a MOOC is "for" it's functioning as a neutral
ground for the exchange of ideas across specialties seems really
important. Like it or not, higher education in particular is a world
of categories, memberships, gates and exclusion for many to the point
of being non-functional in a world where ideas need to flow and
permissions to speak must not be restricted only to the "qualified".
MOOCs provide open access, at least to anyone with an internet
connection, where participation isn't based on position or adeptness
at navigating the educational landscape.

To me MOOCs fit the requirements of an educational "channel" here:
>World Declaration on Education For All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs
<http://www.un-documents.net/jomtien.htm>
“Article V - Broadening the Means and Scope of Basic Education
The diversity, complexity, and changing nature of basic learning needs
of children, youth and adults necessitates broadening and constantly
redefining the scope of basic education to include the following
components:

All available instruments and channels of information, communications,
and social action could be used to help convey essential knowledge and
inform and educate people on social issues. In addition to the
traditional means, libraries, television, radio and other media can be
mobilized to realize their potential towards meeting basic education
needs of all.”<

Can a MOOC fall under a category in educational delivery? One that
may be messy and trades orderliness for openness?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Aug 2, 2011, 12:27:38 PM8/2/11

to eduMOOC

The "neutral ground" approach, however, might encourage the portrayal
of MOOCs as being nebulous and ungrounded.

I prefer to focus on the "C" -- it is a course, designed by one or
more instructors. Whether there are set readings or activities, there
are always two factors -- an organizer and a set period of time for
the course. If it lacks these, it's a learning community instead.

Lisa

Scott HJ

unread,

Aug 2, 2011, 3:06:38 PM8/2/11

to eduMOOC

Every time I mention the word "course" in relation to MOOCs there's
always an argument so I try to avoid the c word. This is new ground
and we are bound to have a certain amount of confusion over taking an
old term that is perceived to be well understood and applying it a new
activity.

Verónica Vázquez Zentella covered this a bit in her blog <http://
consaboreducativo.blogspot.com/2011/01/problem-with-free.html> on what
"free" meant and it might be useful declare which aspects of a course
appear in a MOOC?

Purpose is always declared in the title and resides in the published
content--regardless if it is expected/encouraged that user generated
content will emerge, there is alway initial content.

Design is evident in the ordered progression of topics contained
within a fixed period.

Place exists at first and a home site acts as a portal to the
activities.

A MOOC is informed by a philosophy of learning that may be in dispute
as to its identity as a "theory" but nonetheless feeds the conception
and operation of the activities within a MOOC.

A MOOC can be taken for credit.

What other aspects of course-ness are covered by a MOOC?

Scott

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Aug 2, 2011, 11:20:41 PM8/2/11

to eduMOOC

This is a wonderful list of the qualities that make a MOOC a
"course" (I don't like to argue about stuff like this). Will you put
it in the article? Or will they need it referenced?

Lisa

Scott HJ

unread,

Aug 4, 2011, 1:15:13 AM8/4/11

to eduMOOC

No arguing for sure. My idea was that in spite of there being some
questions around labeling MOOCs a "course" the practitioners declare
them to be so and when I looked at the attributes of what makes an
activity a course from a number of sources MOOCs qualify.

I'll source some attributes of a course (benchmarks of course design
from European Association of Distance Teaching Universities is a good
one) and then find examples from a few MOOC introductions where these
attributes are mentioned to reference. (There's a pre-course
discussion on this on the requirements set forth by the U of Manitoba
to be fulfilled for sponsorship that I'll dig back up). The easiest
would be to simply say that because some MOOCs were offered for credit
they have the seal of institutional recognition as a course but I
think it's more useful to note they were created in the way we
understand courses are created. And of course, as you have noted, this
is an encyclopedia entry and more than just assertions (no matter how
much I love to make them).

Interesting update noted by Rebecca Hogue in her blog <http://
rjh.goingeast.ca/2011/08/04/social-media-and-network-size-edumooc/> on
George Siemens' article: "Losing interest in social media: there is no
there there". A sign of evolution in MOOCs? A redefinition of
participation?

Scott

Maria Droujkova

unread,

Aug 4, 2011, 7:08:54 AM8/4/11

to eduMOOC

Lisa and Scott,

You can put pieces into the article before references are ready, and
it's better to do so in case someone else finds a reference or has
time to edit the piece. You can insert {{citation needed}} after it to
indicate the desire.

Cheers,
MariaD

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Aug 5, 2011, 1:39:18 AM8/5/11

to eduMOOC

I started adding course outlines, but wonder whether that makes it too
long?

Scott HJ

unread,

Aug 5, 2011, 12:44:25 PM8/5/11

to eduMOOC

Hi Lisa,

I guess length could be a problem for an encyclopaedia entry. Is there
a utility for supplemental materials or overflow? Outlines are a
characteristic of something being a course and seem necessary so I'd
say go ahead. Having the same problem with references to MOOCs being
courses, seem to be too many. Why don’t we just load the thing with
all we find and then work backwards to essentials? My experience with
things seeming messy is I haven't reached the point of understanding
what I really want to say--which is why life is messy? Probably.

As a random observation: I noticed when adding a link back to the
Wikipedia entry on Digital Storytelling was that the subject stood by
itself without needing the MOOC structure. I mean the format was Open
and the enrolment was unlimited and it was a course but it felt like
calling it a MOOC was extraneous as (in the world of tools) an
"adjustable open ended wrench" gets called a "Crescent Wrench" because
that's the most famous brand. Guess what I'm getting at is I'm
uncomfortable that MOOCs seem to be the "property" of certain theories
or individuals and that restricts our understanding of them.
Scott

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Aug 6, 2011, 1:53:33 PM8/6/11

to eduMOOC

Agreed. But I do think DS106 is a MOOC. It's massive, open, online and
a course.

I'm thinking we should stick to that as a basic?

I tried to do a MOOC myself, and have been wondering how it fits in.
But I failed, because no one showed up but my enrolled students, as
far as I know. So it failed the M, so I don't count it.

I notice that here and at Google + (in response to George's AI course
thing) that people are defining MOOCs in their own way, which is why I
think everyone should help on the page. I'm thinking that sticking to
the M-O-O-C solves the problem, but yes, it means there will be a
million MOOCs soon.

So maybe what we're posting here is more early examples and outlines,
and instead of organizing by year that whole section should now become
History. Otherwise every MOOC in the world will have to be on it.

Lisa

Scott HJ

unread,

Aug 6, 2011, 5:14:41 PM8/6/11

to eduMOOC

Might be I'm being too strict on the definition of "open" (which is a
subject on its own). The more I read on openness the clearer it is
that an open course has to respond to input from students by altering
content or delivery. DS106 seems to qualify by having incorporated
student work into the course? Made different by participant
contribution? The Stanford AI course fails this test. The content is
written and unalterable and the only student input is to take tests
with predetermined answers or write essays on what you learned from
the content, not what the content "learned" from you.

Think you are right about sticking to a basic short list of MOOC
attributes. MOOCs are embedded in a much larger environment of social
and educational change and we could end up writing a history-of-
everything open and free here. Understandings of what MOOCs are is
going to continue to evolve and I agree with you we should draw a line
around a particular era or maybe differentiate by course leaders'
philosophy? My feeling is to draw the line pretty soon and I'd justify
that by no particular proof but the gut feeling that the genre has
passed from an emerging phenomenon to a self-conscious deliberate
activity. How else is history divided up?

As an arbitrary cut off I'd say Carol Yeager's upcoming "Creativity
and Multicultural Communication" should be declared the last authentic
MOOC and Change MOOC can be placed into the Era of the Pretenders?

Agree we need more people here. There's energy gathering to write a
MOOC presenters guide, which sounds like a natural recruiting ground
to steal volunteers from but I'm going to assume those interested will
contribute as they can. For me, there's a sense of having found the
easy stuff and a desire to search deeper with fewer trips in to add
contributions. There's also a little voice saying "don't leave this
unfinished because you know when this MOOC ends everyone will scatter
to the wind." Most important though is this seems like a good project
to keep working at so I guess I'm here for a while yet.

Reading "Designing Open Educational Technology" by David Kahle. See
what fits into the Wikipedia entry.

I wonder how many contributors work on a typical entry and how they
know they are done?

Scott

> > > long?- Hide quoted text -

Scott HJ

unread,

Aug 10, 2011, 1:29:22 AM8/10/11

to eduMOOC

Hi Lisa

Fine with changing the examples section to History and maybe enriching
the Experiences section. I sense a lot of frustration with lack of
structure and it would be interesting to do a rough count on all the
discussions that focus on figuring out a way to make MOOCs easier to
navigate, follow discussion threads, assemble useful links, and etc.

Why are we so fixated on managing all this? Could it be that MOOCs
seem impossible to tame because we are trying to understand them at
the wrong level?

We need a systems person in on the Wikipedia entry to give us a
perspective from a few steps back?

No more argument from me on the Stanford AI MOOC. What happens when
MOOC meets Big Pedagogy?

Scott

> > > long?- Hide quoted text -

Lisa M Lane

unread,

Aug 10, 2011, 8:11:10 PM8/10/11

to eduMOOC

I'm thinking that the disagreement evidenced by the discussion among
you, me, and Osvaldo should affect the entry. I'm now not so sure that
listing particular MOOCs is a good idea, at least as a chronology.
Perhaps we should be using a select few only as examples of certain
things, like the first one named, the first one without a for-credit
component. But even then I guess we'd have trouble with Stanford's AI
course....

Lisa

Scott HJ

unread,

Aug 10, 2011, 11:40:20 PM8/10/11

to eduMOOC

MOOCs do seem to come in a range of "flavors" unique to the
presenters's choice of topics. And clearly some variation emerges from
how and where the participants choose to set up their discussions. I
think these variables can be drawn into our entry and be listed as
characteristics that run through all MOOCs to some degree or another.
Instead of trying to identify varieties why don't we keep the
chronological list and focus on what makes them all the same?

In many ways, the Stanford course may be the the most useful "version"
of a MOOC yet. Cleared of ambiguity in structure and control we might
actually find that a level of chaos suits the MOOC genre. That
messiness defines a MOOC seems to me to be a given. Does that
messiness serve a knowable purpose? This could be a chance to identify
qualities that are lost in "noise" of a "traditional" MOOC.

MOOCs are anything but resolved and this is a difficult project.
Thanks for your continued work while I fool around with philosophical
silliness.

Scott

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward