Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
89 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/28 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:
>>> Doesn't that make the "board of education" part of the problem?
>>>
>> So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or
>> bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki?
>
> Not sure such bodies are accountable (at least not in the UK).
> Definitely not elected in the UK.

The UK National Curriculum is determined by parliament, I believe -
definitely an elected body.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

David Gerard-2
2009/3/28 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/3/28 Carcharoth <[hidden email]>:

>> Not sure such bodies are accountable (at least not in the UK).
>> Definitely not elected in the UK.

> The UK National Curriculum is determined by parliament, I believe -
> definitely an elected body.


(I believe it's the English National Curriculum, not a UK-wide thing.)

It may also be worth pointing out that the Schools Wikipedia, compiled
to the National Curriculum, is proving vastly popular with teachers
around the world. And, remember, it was created not as an attempt at a
Wikipedia-on-DVD, but as a practical workaday encyclopedia for SOS
Children's Villages to use in their own schools.

So if it's not up to scratch as an encyclopedia to use with the
National Curriculum, saying "don't use it" is unlikely to fix the
situation - instead, the most effective approach would be to make it
better and fix problems.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Legal examination

Doc glasgow
Examination Question: Read the following


"Sarah H. Cleveland is the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and
Constitutional Rights at Columbia Law School. She is a noted advocate of
the use of international law in U.S. courts.

In her widely celebrated 2007 Civil Procedure final exam, she referenced
Wikipedia to highlight how fraught personal jurisdiction issues have
become in the Internet age. Students were asked to analyze whether an
allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit could establish jurisdiction
over the user in an unforeseeable State, so long as the defamation
created harm in that State.

She is a graduate of Brown University, University of Oxford as a Rhodes
Scholar, and Yale Law School."


Taken from Wikipedia's article on Prof. Cleveland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Cleveland&oldid=255771191

Students should now write an essay on one of the following:

1) In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly
defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the user
in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created harm in
that state.

Or

2) Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal examination

Jon-174
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

doc wrote:

> Examination Question: Read the following
>
>
> "Sarah H. Cleveland is the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and
> Constitutional Rights at Columbia Law School. She is a noted
> advocate of the use of international law in U.S. courts.
>
> In her widely celebrated 2007 Civil Procedure final exam, she
> referenced Wikipedia to highlight how fraught personal jurisdiction
> issues have become in the Internet age. Students were asked to
> analyze whether an allegedly defamatory Wikipedia page edit could
> establish jurisdiction over the user in an unforeseeable State, so
> long as the defamation created harm in that State.
>
> She is a graduate of Brown University, University of Oxford as a
> Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law School."
>
>
> Taken from Wikipedia's article on Prof. Cleveland.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Cleveland&oldid=255771191
>
>
> Students should now write an essay on one of the following:
>
> 1) In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly
>  defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the
> user in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created
> harm in that state.
>
> Or
>
> 2) Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit.
>
> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing
> list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing
> list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apologies if I misunderstand.  Are you asking the participants of this
mlist to do the assignment?  Am I missing something, or am I obtuse?

Cheers - Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknOiR0ACgkQR7/9CWL6/5hdtwCgrKtXXRbhXQGvkcJvKLfLY/Sg
7RIAoKMit3+wohqzVwbX1O5yEeVuw1i0
=Mnc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal examination

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by Doc glasgow
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:23 PM, doc <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

> Students should now write an essay on one of the following:
>
> 1) In terms of personal jurisdiction, analyze whether an allegedly
> defamatory Wikipedia page edit can establish jurisdiction over the user
> in an unforeseeable state, so long as the defamation created harm in
> that state.
>
> Or
>
> 2) Discuss why this particular Wikipedia article is bullshit.

Pass.

I'm actually going through a list of unmarked BLPs (a small list of
300 articles, part of a much bigger selection). It would be
interesting to see what I'm seeing there is representative of the
whole, or not.

See the following:

AN discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive187#Putting_biographies_in_Category:Living_people

Worklists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixeagle/BLPPotential

The 300 I'm working through:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Sandbox3

Further thoughts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Biographical_and_new_articles_checklist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carcharoth/Biographical_and_new_articles_checklist

Old proposal I made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_20#Workflow_and_project_management_proposal

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

WJhonson
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
You're being hyperbolic.  That isn't a good way to counter an  argument.
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/28/2009 6:33:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

Replace  the expert, who
wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth  according to whoever
made the last  edit?


**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

WJhonson
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
I like that.  I wonder if there is a bot that automagically adds an  
unsourced tag to any article with zero or one source?
That would actually be a USEFUL bot.
I can't believe I just said that.
Will
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/28/2009 7:11:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

The  disclaimer should read: "please check everything
written here against the  sources provided - if there are no sources,
the article cannot be relied  upon".

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

Mark
In reply to this post by Doc glasgow
doc wrote:
> So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or
> bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki? Replace the expert, who
> wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever
> made the last edit?
>
> I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy,
> professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions,
> stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.

On average, I'd say it isn't the best system we've got, and that
Wikipedia is a better system. That is, if we're discussing the fairly
narrow issue of basic coverage of primary-level history, not detailed
coverage of specialist topics. The basic Wikipedia coverage of the
subject matter in a typical high-school history textbook is, as far as I
can tell, generally better than the coverage in the textbooks
themselves. This varies by area, and there are perhaps some
jurisdictions that use very good textbooks, but I'd say on average the
textbooks are worse. If you include the textbooks of non-western
countries, the textbooks are so much worse as to not even be a fair
comparison.

Of course, I don't get most of my specialist, higher-level knowledge
from Wikipedia in my field of research; I'll trust a book or survey
article by a well-known specialist in the field first. But if I just
want an overview of the US participation in World War II, you can bet
I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Texas Board of
Education's approved version; and if I want an article on the Thai
monarchy, I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Thai
government's approved version.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

Noah Salzman
In reply to this post by Doc glasgow

On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:25 AM, doc wrote:

> 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?


Because they want their 9-year-old to use a free Encyclopedia (and  
perhaps indoctrinate them to the Wikipedia "brand") but they don't  
want them stumbling over the "adult oriented" content.

   --Noah--

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345