I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users unless it is relevant to the subject of this thread, which is about the nature of education, whether educational content is appropriate for Wikipedia, and whether encyclopedia is improving its coverage of educational content since 2005.
Regarding 'academic' and 'educational'. These are not the same. Friday's featured article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/September_17,_2010 is about the Ormulum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ormulum . This is a well-written article, which identifies the salient points and presents them clearly and in a way that interests the reader. It is not too long, and it covers a subject which is not trivial or ephemeral. But it is not academic. It is not written in an academic style, it does not present original research, and so on. It is a presentation of an academic subject intended to appeal to a mass audience. Supporting my original claim, the article was mostly completed by 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ormulum&oldid=29012831 . Note also that the two main authors of the article appear to have stopped contributing. If I were donating to Wikipedia, I would want to know why such talented editors were no longer contributing, and what efforts were being made to get them back. (Please note: I was not involved in writing this article). With every kind wish, Peter _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
