Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> I have had a number of excellent deep discussions with high school,
>> college, grade school teachers about Wikipedia and the ones who pay
>> more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry as an essay"
>> ge
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
>>
> I don't know.
George Herbert wrote:
> I know EB and World Book contributors who are very upset about
> Wikipedia's rise, and many who see it as a godsend to information
> propogation around the world, on the order of the rise of the Web and
> of Google. There are lost jobs at EB and WB - but the Post Office has
--
From: "Gregory Maxwell"
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:22 AM
To: "Happy-melon" ; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List"
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged revisions)
for English Wikipedia.
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009
On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
Does the WMF commission surveys like this? It would s
2009/10/10 Samuel Klein :
> The ratio of overhead to other expenses isn't always a great meter
> stick, as Erik mentions. Nevertheless, one extraordinary aspect of
> Wikipedia and siblings is how high the efficiency of its core project
> work is by that measure: 100 billion views / 100 million ed
2009/10/10 Anthony :
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
> I don't know. My e
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They are
>>> aware we aren't a primary source, and the risks of any secondary
>>> source... Such as Britannica and World Book, too.
>>>
>>
>> One would think
2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>
> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
>
> Does the WMF comm
On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of
>>> thing
>>> would be a fascinatin
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
>>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
>>
>> Doe
2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
> they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the
> spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here.
>
> I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a
> requir
2009/10/10 Marc Riddell :
> Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference
> between information and knowledge.
That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the
where I used the term the two are synonyms.
--
geni
___
> 2009/10/10 Marc Riddell :
>> Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference
>> between information and knowledge.
on 10/10/09 11:36 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the
> where I used the term
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
>> they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the
>> spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here.
>>
>> I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a
On 10 Oct 2009, at 16:54, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement
>> that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view
>> it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem
2009/10/10 Marc Riddell :
> Geni, in true scholarship, "information" and "knowledge" are not synonymous.
>
> Marc
Entirely depends on the context. Sometimes they are sometimes not. In
the context I was useing the term they are (doesn't really scan
otherwise).
--
geni
Hi all,
I have gotten my old youtube introspector::reader script now running
on the wikimedia strategy, and am reading all the english articles
as youtube videos. All the code is checked in.
Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsuoRQDsWCo
The idea is to use latex to format the pag
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:
>
>> The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a
>> requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge
>> seriously.
>>
> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
>
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at wrote:
>
>> Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement
>> that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view
>> it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem okey to the peons but we
>> know better".
>>
Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> One would think from these discussions you might have learned that
>>> Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources
>> What is accomplished by trying to label encyclopedias as te
on 10/10/09 7:31 PM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote:
>>
> At the high school level what may be acceptable when the students start
> may not be acceptable when they graduate. They should be learning how
> to think critically, and looking beyond what the teacher and the
> textbook
[and
>>> More interesting for us
>>> would be why these kids use Wikipedia. Are the authorized proprietary
>>> textbooks that bad?
>>>
>> No, kids just understand that they're going to get caught if they
>> plagiarize from their textbooks. What they don't realize is that the
>> "NPOV" language of Wiki
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I guess. I'd support a system where a real-named individual (or maybe
> even a very well-established pseudonym) signs off on an entire
> article.
Should read "one or more real-named individuals..."
___
24 matches
Mail list logo
