What if rather than a fixed format CD/DVD for every school we create a sample with instructions that enables teachers to make customised versions to suit their style of teaching, the age group, and intended subject area.
We show them how to identify article quality and what the class rating indicates, including what deficiencies are. How to read article historys to identify the version that they are using Cover copyright issues both for articles, and images what the requirements are for a class room disc. High light the sourcing//verifiability of articles. Also cover editing basics, norms for user interaction, where to get what type of help when online 2008/12/11 Craig Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think you've misinterpreted what I'm proposing. I agree with you in > regards to "offline content", it takes away entirely one of the chief > advantages of an online encyclopaedia - that is, being up to date. If this > project happens, I fully support the main mode of delivery being a website > that students can access, and which can be periodically updated (although a > download is probably still a good idea for the handful of places where an > online interactive site can't be supported, such as extremely remote schools > with limited or no internet connectivity). > > In response to your specific questions: > > 1) I've talked to two teachers in the past few days, and asked them > specifically for their thoughts on Wikipedia. One said "there's porn on > that site, so we don't allow students to use it at school", and the other > cited the usual concerns about data being incorrect, incomplete, etc. I > realise that the opinions of two teachers don't cover the opinions of all > teachers, but I'd wager that their views are not unusual. As we all know, > neither of these concerns are particularly true, but nevertheless, the > perception continues to persist. > > 2) I think that highlighting Wikipedia's best content and delivering it is > a laudable endeavour. There's lots of great content, but there's also lots > of not-so-great content. While we work on getting the not-so-great stuff up > to scratch, why not provide a sample of the good stuff to get people > interested? Especially if we can tie in the good content with topics > teachers want to teach. It can also be a useful tool to find out what > content we need to concentrate on improving (that is, what the general > public, our "customers", are interested in). > > 3) Obviously, we'd have to talk to education departments to see what they > want. But even without talking to them, it's obvious that there are some > gaps, which it won't take that much effort to fill in. > > 4) See my comments above. This is an entirely separate issue, in my view. > > I'm well aware that with all things, there will be disagreement on whether > this is a suitable use of our time. However, my view is that this will cost > WMau nothing, not take up that much work (relatively speaking), and can > possibly lead to some good press, help spread the knowledge around, and > perhaps help recruit the next generation of Wiki-contributors. > > Regards, > Craig > > > ------------------- > Craig Franklin > PO Box 1093 > Toombul, Q, 4012 > Australia > http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, > and Culture. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Halasz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* Wikimedia-au <email@example.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:22 PM > *Subject:* [personal] Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Wikipedia and schools > > Basically there are three issues being discussed: censorship, cut down > wikipedia for schools, and an offline wikipedia. > > The schools issue is also confused. What is its purpose? Are we talking > censoring images? Protecting children from dangerous information? Legal > concerns? or are we trying to create textbooks? Use more appropriate > (simpler) language? Create an offline Wikipedia? Filter content for children > who are not old enough to tell nonsense from fact? Pick the best revision of > an article for children? I don't see (which is) the purpose. > > But here's my two cents on these issues all the same: > > 1) We should be working with schools and concerned parents on these issues. > We're not exactly being preemptive with schools anyway: Schools have been > using Wikipedia for years, often having specific policies relating to its > use in assignments. So before we do anything, we should be talking with > schools. Do schools even have an issue with explicit images on Wikipedia? > This thread was started by ISPs in England censoring Wikipedia -- not > schools. Would hiding images be enough, or do they want entire articles > censored? Are they happy enough censoring it themselves, or do they want > more precise filters (e.g. removing/hiding images). > > 2) a schools wikipedia should not simply be a "whitelist" of "good pages" > -- there are 2.5 million articles and we're not going to classify each one. > For one it's far easier to blacklist, and then you're just censoring. > > 3) But if you want to pretend that a cutdown wikipedia is different to a > censored Wikipedia .. A cutdown pedia needs a specific curriculum. I believe > schools-wikipedia is based on some UK curriculum. If we make one for > Australian schools (which I do not personally think is a great idea) it > needs to be based on topics from Australian cirricula (and every state has > its own). Probably should be based on an age group (because I really don't > think year 12's need a special cutdown 'pedia) It also needs to be based on > demand from schools, parents and students (see #1), which I'm not aware of. > Also, it seems to be a massive waste of effort, as it's just going to be a > poorer version of the full Wikipedia. What is the specific need we're > addressing? (see questions at top) If there's content school kids shouldn't > be allowed to see, then we need to work with schools. If there's a need for > offline viewing, then there's probably a better way than putting HTML on a > DVD. > > 4) a CD/DVD/USB stick offline version of Wikipedia fails in a number of > fundamental ways. Apart from being inherently incomplete, uneditable and > immediately out of date, the only real purpose is to make Wikipedia > available where there isn't internet access. This is an odd way of making > the internet available where there isn't internet. In my opinion, lobbying > governments to give schools internet access would be more effective than > trying to tackle the impossible task of turning a massive, dynamic, > interactive website (Wikipedia) into a DVD. (What came of the German DVD > anyway? Honest question, not retorical) > > I'm writing another message on how I think an offline WIkipedia could > possibly work, in a general way, if there are keen developers and/or > resources to get it done. > > Basically, what is the driving force for a Schools Wikipedia Australia, and > who needs it? > > Peter Halasz > User:Pengo > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaauemail@example.com > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l