On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 01:47 +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
---
SECTION A: THEORETICAL
Q 2. "Should Wikipedia be taxed or subsidised"?
----
A 2. Wikipedia should be taxed as to do so would require new legislation
allowing the taxing of foreign charitable organisation. With such
legislation, we can tax all foreign charity thus making us lots of money
in the short term even if it mean making us the enemy of the world in
the long term.
;-)
Note the complete lack of any *definitions*. Whoever
set the paper
clearly treats the existence of Wikipedia as a simple fact of basic
knowledge, and assumes their students all have a rough idea of what it
is and how it works...
That, or the lecturer have discussed Wikipedia before during the course.
To be fair, just because academia doesn't necessarily like students
using (or at the least - citing) Wikipedia doesn't mean they don't
recognise its existence.
Basic knowledge assumption for exams reminds me of the story of a
physics final paper which assumes the student are aware of (to a
reasonable estimate) the size/width/gap of [[cricket]] equipment. A poor
foreign student could only answer the question after changing the sport
to bowling.
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine