Re: [WikiEN-l] How to ignore wikien-l.
I just delete the threads I'm not interested in. bibliomaniac15 --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Guettarda wrote: From: Guettarda Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to ignore wikien-l. To: "English Wikipedia" Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 9:51 PM Or you can dedicate an email account simply to wikien-l, and only check it once or twice a week, preferably when you only have a few minutes to devote to reading it. And make sure it's gmail, so that threads are grouped. It's much easier to ignore a grouped thread, especially when it has accumulated 40 messages... :) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote: > news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english > (Same people, same list, longer history, less demanding of attention, less > likely to result in attitude contamination from spam. If you like it, then > you can disable getting it by e-mail.) > > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to ignore wikien-l.
Or you can dedicate an email account simply to wikien-l, and only check it once or twice a week, preferably when you only have a few minutes to devote to reading it. And make sure it's gmail, so that threads are grouped. It's much easier to ignore a grouped thread, especially when it has accumulated 40 messages... :) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote: > news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english > (Same people, same list, longer history, less demanding of attention, less > likely to result in attitude contamination from spam. If you like it, then > you can disable getting it by e-mail.) > > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Thomas Dalton wrote: > > Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school > textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, > children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being > taught how to judge their reliability. > Yes, at its best, Wikipedia is better referenced. But the rest of the Wikipedia promotional comparison does not follow. Children's textbooks are not without referencing because evil educationalists want to suppress other views, thus giving wikipedia a new mission of liberating oppression. Children's textbooks are basic, because that's where Children start. There are libraries - free to Children - full of well referenced books. However. 1) Most of Wikipedia is NOT written from multiple sources. Indeed some of out better written articles are basically mono-authored and use the author's preferred source. 2) The reason kids don't read the highly referenced works is not because "sources are evil" because they are often not written in a manner accessible to children. Wikipedia here is no different. Many of out bloated or complex featured articles are not simple and not particularly child friendly. 3) Read the School textbook, you are less likely to be reading downright bullshit. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
2009/3/28 Carcharoth : > i.e. learn from using Wikipedia that multiple sources and judging > their reliability are essential, but don't presume any particular > Wikipedia article (even if featured) is comprehensive in terms of > sources. Even the best featured article is still just a starting point > (albeit usually a very good one). Of course. Has anyone claimed that Wikipedia is free of bias? We try and minimise the bias (and, I think, do a pretty decent job), but we'll never eliminate it entirely. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/28 doc : >> Carcharoth wrote: >>> Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia >>> article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some >>> background reading and research, and the history presented in those >>> other sources is different to what you are teaching us". >>> >>> i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind >>> Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry >>> point into reading about the topic. >> >> Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources >> sections in the textbook the school is commending. >> >> The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or >> less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people >> publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the >> work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of >> wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden. > > Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school > textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, > children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being > taught how to judge their reliability. Though to take the other tack for a minute, as a general purpose encyclopedia (with niches of speciality and depth), Wikipedia doesn't use all the diversity of sources for most topics. There is still editorial discretion over how to present a particular article or topic, and that is where bias can still be present, through the omission of sources. There is little point someone (child or adult) going "Wow! 20 different sources used and listed in this article", if the article fails to use several of the most reliable and authoritative sources on a topic. And if a topic has thousands of sources, Wikipedia, even if it uses 100 sources, can't claim to be distilling the diversity of the thousands of sources (though hopefully it would point to books that do approach that level of detail). i.e. learn from using Wikipedia that multiple sources and judging their reliability are essential, but don't presume any particular Wikipedia article (even if featured) is comprehensive in terms of sources. Even the best featured article is still just a starting point (albeit usually a very good one). Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
2009/3/28 doc : > Carcharoth wrote: >> Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia >> article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some >> background reading and research, and the history presented in those >> other sources is different to what you are teaching us". >> >> i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind >> Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry >> point into reading about the topic. > > Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources > sections in the textbook the school is commending. > > The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or > less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people > publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the > work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of > wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden. Wikipedia is generally better referenced that most primary school textbooks I've seen. Presumably Wikipedia won't replace textbooks, children will, instead, be learning from multiple sources and being taught how to judge their reliability. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Carcharoth wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc wrote: > > > >> The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps >> in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia >> to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, >> it says on wikipedia", is laughable. > > Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia > article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some > background reading and research, and the history presented in those > other sources is different to what you are teaching us". > > i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind > Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry > point into reading about the topic. > > Carcharoth > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > Which is about as likely as them reading the endnotes and sources sections in the textbook the school is commending. The notion that using wikipedia properly makes people think any more (or less) than using any other media is flawed. At least the people publishing the dead tree have put their names and reputations to the work, and if it stinks of bias then they smell. The agenda of wikipedia's nameless editors are, in fact, far more hidden. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc wrote: > The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps > in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia > to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, > it says on wikipedia", is laughable. Presumably, they would actually go: "but sir, I read the Wikipedia article, and while checking the sources provided there, I did some background reading and research, and the history presented in those other sources is different to what you are teaching us". i.e. Hopefully this hypothetical kid would credit the source behind Wikipedia, and credit Wikipedia only in-so-far as it provided an entry point into reading about the topic. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Sam Korn wrote: > > As ever, I'm a little more optimistic than you, Scott. I think there > is a potential use for members of the Wikipedia community to go into > schools and explain how Wikipedia should be used because > > 1. children /will/ encounter Wikipedia; > 2. they need to know how it can be helpful and how it can be harmful; and > 3. teachers are unlikely to be able to impart this knowledge. > >> You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and >> give them grammar and dictation. > > And Latin. > Dum spiro, spero However, Children will encounter many things that are helpful and harmful: MacDonalds, Disney, Microsoft, Celebrity Big Brother, and the blessed Royal Bank of Scotland. Whilst the odd guest speaker from such organisations appearing for an hour on a dull Friday at the end of term no doubt has its merits, I wouldn't start developing your agenda for "Wikipedia Classes" anytime soon. Or maybe youtube should be there too. If given a good general education, kids will, for the most, figure such stuff out for themselves. And in any case, the law of technological evolution says by the time primary kids hit the workplace, Wikipedia may well be as relevant as my intimate knowledge of the ZX Spectrum. Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, doc wrote: > The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps > in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia > to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, > it says on wikipedia", is laughable. > > I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the > English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as > a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with > informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest > that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" > should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to > access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of > knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog. > > The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as > ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want > us, they really do - we always said they would". As ever, I'm a little more optimistic than you, Scott. I think there is a potential use for members of the Wikipedia community to go into schools and explain how Wikipedia should be used because 1. children /will/ encounter Wikipedia; 2. they need to know how it can be helpful and how it can be harmful; and 3. teachers are unlikely to be able to impart this knowledge. > You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and > give them grammar and dictation. And Latin. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
> Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him >> more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't >> worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research >> for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using >> Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research >> project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent >> paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant >> person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. >> I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, >> and he managed. >> >> Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would >> not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably >> greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of >> school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies >> curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official >> truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to >> formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those >> truths. >> >> Ec >> on 3/27/09 6:14 PM, doc at doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: > > The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps > in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia > to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, > it says on wikipedia", is laughable. > > I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the > English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as > a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with > informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest > that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" > should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to > access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of > knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog. > > The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as > ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want > us, they really do - we always said they would". > > Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are > quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki. It does not > require a high level of education - as the, em, abilities of our > community adequately demonstrates. Indeed, the average 40-something > classroom teacher is more likely to know less than the kids. But what > the children *can't* teach themselves (and what on-line communication > drastically requires) is basic literacy skills. Excellent post, Scott! > > You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and > give them grammar and dictation. > And skills in verbal communication, in-person, face-to-face. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
2009/3/27 doc : > Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are > quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki. Yes. Perhaps we need lessons in how to get the kids *off* Bebo. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Ray Saintonge wrote: > My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him > more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't > worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research > for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using > Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research > project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent > paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant > person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. > I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, > and he managed. > > Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would > not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably > greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of > school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies > curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official > truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to > formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those > truths. > > Ec > The idea of wikipedia anywhere near a school curriculum, except perhaps in a brief IT lesson, horrifies me. The idea of children using wikipedia to challenge the "official truth" of a qualified teacher with "but sir, it says on wikipedia", is laughable. I think that most of this discussion has missed the point that the English Ofsted chap in no way suggested that Wikipedia should be used as a teaching supplement at all, or that he had anything to do with informing people about history or politics. Rather he seems to suggest that certain internet skills "blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter" should be taught in schools, and children should be familiar with how to access their information. So, we no more get Wikipedia as a source of knowledge than Twitter, and your local blog. The reaction "this shows the WMF should go into schools" is as ridiculous a conclusion as it is a typical wikicentric "OMG they want us, they really do - we always said they would". Why I think Sir John is barking up the wrong tree is that children are quite able to teach themselves to blog and edit a wiki. It does not require a high level of education - as the, em, abilities of our community adequately demonstrates. Indeed, the average 40-something classroom teacher is more likely to know less than the kids. But what the children *can't* teach themselves (and what on-line communication drastically requires) is basic literacy skills. You want to train wikipedians in a primary school? Turn off the PCs and give them grammar and dictation. Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Vandalism and Autoconfirm levels
2009/3/26 Jay Litwyn : > Maybe someone should institute quizzes for anybody that gets > template-warned. Maybe quizzes for anyone who template-warns. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
doc wrote: > More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow > them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my > daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and > Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school. My son is now in first year of college, and I tried for years to get him more involved; I even brought him with me to Alexandria. It hasn't worked, but I know that he used Wikipedia to help him in his research for school papers. He has had the good sense to know that using Wikipedia should not be both the beginning and the end of the research project, but neither should Encarta and Britannica be so. In a recent paper on Machu Pichu he ran into a stub article about some relevant person, but there was a link to es:wp which had a much longer article. I then told him that figuring out the other language was his problem, and he managed. Having Wikipedia as a substitute for a school history curriculum would not be appropriate. It should be a supplement there, with probably greater importance than for other subjects taught at that level of school. Nationalism is a major factor in school social studies curricula, and a great medium for indoctrinating the child with official truth. Access to Wikipedia and other on-line sources helps him to formulate the questions that needed to challenge the teachers of those truths. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Sam Korn wrote: > Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question > Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other > sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject > (and supremely history). > Possibly more broadly. I was looking around for references to a rather 'retro' teaching method for history, and found this: "The significance of ephemera for the teaching of history in schools has already been demonstrated. In particular, Longman’s ‘Jackdaw’ series from the 1960s, and more recently the ephemera collections sold by the Public Record Office, have shown how effective reproductions of ephemeral documents of the past can be as part of a teaching pack. The educational potential of ephemera at all stages of education has increased beyond measure in recent years with the widespread availability of electronic methods of delivering images." From http://www.cilip.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0CE6922C-0DF2-4A70-ACED-B40005A115A4/0/ephemera.pdf, at p. 11. I'm old enough to remember the 'Jackdaws', which were folders of reproduction period documents and other things: primary sources in a wallet. The point made here is quite correct, though closer to using the Commons and Wikisource perhaps: it could become essentially trivial to produce the raw material for such a thing now, and to rehabilitate 'project work'. This would fit quite well with also asking students to go and critique pieces of historical writing in the suggested style. Of course curricula aren't exactly designed for this stuff, as of right now, in the UK. (Hmmm, 40 years since I was last subjected to formal history teaching: "the Hanoverians" ... wonder if it would have helped.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Durova wrote: > Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: > > "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version > from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page > histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older > version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get a > safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go stay > out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." > Anyone who feels the need to plagiarize in this way probably lacks the foresight needed to implement the technique. The need and the foresight are mutually exclusive. :-) Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Noah Salzman wrote: > On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:14 AM, doc wrote: > >> More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow >> them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. >> When my >> daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and >> Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school. > > > What about http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ?? > > I'm always surprised I don't see that "promoted" more. > >--Noah-- > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > You'll get more articles in Encarta or Britanicca - and they WILL have all the core ones, rather than a selection of what's been OK on wikipedia. Why would anyone want to use the schools' wikipedia? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:14 AM, doc wrote: > More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow > them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. > When my > daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and > Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school. What about http://schools-wikipedia.org/ ?? I'm always surprised I don't see that "promoted" more. --Noah-- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Durova wrote: > The scary thing is that would probably work. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova wrote: >> >>> Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: >>> >>> "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic >> version >>> from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page >>> histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older >>> version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get >> a >>> safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go >> stay >>> out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." >>> >>> (cackles, flees) >>> >> That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it >> works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over >> the internet, but it is static. >> > I suspect the "UR MOM sucks TEH cock lol" line in the middle of your otherwise fluent essay on the Reunification of Italy might be a bit of a give away. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Durova wrote: > The scary thing is that would probably work. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova wrote: >> >>> Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: >>> >>> "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic >> version >>> from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page >>> histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older >>> version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get >> a >>> safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go >> stay >>> out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." >>> >>> (cackles, flees) >>> >> That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it >> works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over >> the internet, but it is static. >> > I suspect the "U MOM sucks cock lol" line in the middle of your otherwise fluent essay on the Reunification of Italy might be a bit of a give away. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
The scary thing is that would probably work. On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Al Tally wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova wrote: > > > Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: > > > > "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic > version > > from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page > > histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older > > version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get > a > > safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go > stay > > out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." > > > > (cackles, flees) > > > > That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it > works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over > the internet, but it is static. > > -- > Alex > (User:Majorly) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Durova wrote: > Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: > > "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version > from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page > histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older > version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get a > safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go stay > out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." > > (cackles, flees) > That works great, until you get the teacher that does understand how it works. And of course, text has been lifted from Wikipedia and is all over the internet, but it is static. -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism: "Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older version will appear more primitive and more believably yours. You'll get a safe B instead of a fingernail-biting A or an F for plagiarism. So go stay out late at that party, relax, and cheat smarter not harder." (cackles, flees) On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Michael Bimmler > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen > >> wrote: > >>> Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. > >>> However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils > >>> how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter > >>> taking the place of history in primary schools. > >> > >> To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the > >> potential to *improve* history in primary schools. > > > > How so? > > Primarily in teaching how *not* to use it! > > Naturally primary (and early secondary) education should include > teaching how to use the Internet in learning. Given Wikipedia's > prominence, it would of course be correct for such teaching to include > the proper use of Wikipedia. Students might be encouraged not to > regurgitate whole paragraphs from Wikipedia. > > Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question > Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other > sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject > (and supremely history). > > Sam > > -- > Sam > PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Ooh, shiny: Wikirank
Very shiny indeed! And look at that, Vi is kicking Emacs' ass! http://wikirank.com/en/Vi,Emacs Apparently no one looks up articles on Unix text-editors on weekends :) (although I imagine that's a wikipedia-wide drop) --Oskar On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: > Did anyone see? > > http://wikirank.com/en > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Ooh, shiny: Wikirank
Did anyone see? http://wikirank.com/en ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Michael Bimmler wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen >> wrote: >>> Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. >>> However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils >>> how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter >>> taking the place of history in primary schools. >> >> To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the >> potential to *improve* history in primary schools. > > How so? Primarily in teaching how *not* to use it! Naturally primary (and early secondary) education should include teaching how to use the Internet in learning. Given Wikipedia's prominence, it would of course be correct for such teaching to include the proper use of Wikipedia. Students might be encouraged not to regurgitate whole paragraphs from Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is the potential that teaching students to question Wikipedia could lead to their being more disposed to question other sources, which is obviously very useful in the study of any subject (and supremely history). Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen > wrote: >> Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. >> However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils >> how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter >> taking the place of history in primary schools. > > To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the > potential to *improve* history in primary schools. How so? Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
Sorry, but diaries serve a different function. They are for grand machinations and secret crushes. Blogging is more for worldly thoughts and that is my particular forte. Best, Bill From: David Gerard To: English Wikipedia Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:22:15 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory 2009/3/27 Thomas Larsen : > Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. > However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils > how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter > taking the place of history in primary schools. Remember the good old days before LiveJournal, when teenagers *didn't want* you to read their diary? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Thomas Larsen wrote: > Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. > However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils > how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter > taking the place of history in primary schools. To take a contrary view, teaching proper use of Wikipedia has the potential to *improve* history in primary schools. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
2009/3/27 Thomas Larsen : > Admittedly, I haven't perused the entire article very thoroughly. > However, I am /very/ skeptical about teaching primary school pupils > how to blog at all, and I am strongly opposed to Wikipedia and Twitter > taking the place of history in primary schools. Remember the good old days before LiveJournal, when teenagers *didn't want* you to read their diary? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] User:Faithlessthewonderboy
Alex Sawczynec wrote: > Also, it seems to be rather bad form to not only name a specific user to > accuse of bad practices, but to also title the thread with his name. Gives a > much different idea of what the intended message is. > Why shouldn't a person making such outrageous deletions be named? Are you denying that he made them? Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
