In a message dated 3/25/2009 3:02:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Err no we are looking to create an encyclopedia. Government surveillance is a separate issue.
You are assuming that "we" means the project. I used "we" to mean "all right thinking people".
Will
************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
Getting back to the original post.
How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average British school textbook?
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:08 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/25/2009 3:02:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Err no we are looking to create an encyclopedia. Government surveillance is a separate issue.
You are assuming that "we" means the project. I used "we" to mean "all right thinking people".
Will
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 WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/3/25 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Getting back to the original post.
How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average British school textbook?
-Durova
Probably more comprehensive in that no one has yet worked out how to make a text book 30 foot thick. On the other hand in say the case of WW1 wikipedia tends to focus on the battles, the tactics, the weapons and to an extent the politics rather than what life was like for the average solider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Life_in_the_trenches
probably comes closest.
Compare that with the length of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Chamond_(tank)
geni wrote:
2009/3/25 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Getting back to the original post.
How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average British school textbook?
-Durova
Probably more comprehensive in that no one has yet worked out how to make a text book 30 foot thick. On the other hand in say the case of WW1 wikipedia tends to focus on the battles, the tactics, the weapons and to an extent the politics rather than what life was like for the average solider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Life_in_the_trenches
probably comes closest.
Compare that with the length of:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement. The former section could benefit from better sourcing, whereas the latter equipment is probably better documented. It comes down to interests of editors, since nobody is forced to edit topics they aren't interested in (although, if paid, I will happily do that). A comparison may be drawn between the frankly appallingly-written articles about some recent musical groups, as against conscientious and detailed articles about bands such as [[The Beatles]], [[The Who]] and [[Led Zeppelin]]. This doesn't immunise those articles against vandalism, fancruft and other nonsense, but at least it means there is a cadre of commited editors who will strive to maintain encyclopedic standards.
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Probably more recent than my 1950s primary school history, which IIRC, was more about dates and events rather than people, and my 1960s history education was more about politics than anything else. Social history might just as well have been a foreign language when I was taught. Let's just say it didn't relate to my experience of life, and thus failed to light my fire.
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Probably more recent than my 1950s primary school history, which IIRC, was more about dates and events rather than people, and my 1960s history education was more about politics than anything else. Social history might just as well have been a foreign language when I was taught. Let's just say it didn't relate to my experience of life, and thus failed to light my fire.
Indeed, history education has changed a lot since then! When I was in primary school (10+ years ago) we hardly learned any dates, it was all about what life was like during that period.
This discussion of World War I social issues is irresistible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh!_How_I_Hate_to_Get_Up_in_the_Morning
-Durova
P.S. Shameless plug for an article I wrote. The audio file is a featured sound.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Probably more recent than my 1950s primary school history, which IIRC,
was
more about dates and events rather than people, and my 1960s history education was more about politics than anything else. Social history
might
just as well have been a foreign language when I was taught. Let's just
say
it didn't relate to my experience of life, and thus failed to light my
fire.
Indeed, history education has changed a lot since then! When I was in primary school (10+ years ago) we hardly learned any dates, it was all about what life was like during that period.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Durova wrote:
This discussion of World War I social issues is irresistible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh!_How_I_Hate_to_Get_Up_in_the_Morning
-Durova
P.S. Shameless plug for an article I wrote. The audio file is a featured sound.
Actually, Lise, as an owl rather than a lark, I'm already way ahead of you on that, politics apart.
I hate this damn machine. Why don't I sell it. It does not what I want it to, but rather what I tell it.
Clicked on play button. Buffer got up to 62%, then stalled and started over according to the numbers. Pressed the stop button...kept playing a little bit more, then a little bit more. It should hav stopped when I pressed the more button to download it, and it did not. I pressed the more button to get the download link. Still playing bits. Started download. Download completes in record time. Downloaded five seconds of it according to winamp. Delete file. Start download again. That five second bit in the cache, so the download is at 1000kbps, and I am not on broadband. Dropped the whole page to stop it from playing bits. Called it up again. Pressed title bar to get full description page. 89%, 9:04.
"Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote in message news:a01006d90903251727w12acbd0cma73bc8be476d6036@mail.gmail.com...
This discussion of World War I social issues is irresistible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh!_How_I_Hate_to_Get_Up_in_the_Morning
-Durova
P.S. Shameless plug for an article I wrote. The audio file is a featured sound.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Probably more recent than my 1950s primary school history, which IIRC,
was
more about dates and events rather than people, and my 1960s history education was more about politics than anything else. Social history
might
just as well have been a foreign language when I was taught. Let's just
say
it didn't relate to my experience of life, and thus failed to light my
fire.
Indeed, history education has changed a lot since then! When I was in primary school (10+ years ago) we hardly learned any dates, it was all about what life was like during that period.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Probably more recent than my 1950s primary school history, which IIRC, was more about dates and events rather than people, and my 1960s history education was more about politics than anything else. Social history might just as well have been a foreign language when I was taught. Let's just say it didn't relate to my experience of life, and thus failed to light my fire.
Indeed, history education has changed a lot since then! When I was in primary school (10+ years ago) we hardly learned any dates, it was all about what life was like during that period.
That brings it down to a level one can relate to, but it has to be within the wider context. That may come later, but if the initial teaching does not make that magic happen, students can be lost for ever. Starting from a personal account relating to say, the [[English Civil War]] makes the effects of the political machinations very real. The same applies to the personal accounts of the American Civil War, which bring home to a student the practical effects of political decisions; this contextual teaching may be somewhat modern, but to my mind it is somewhat more useful than its predecessors.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Maybe I went to the wrong sort of primary school (this was over 20 years ago now - <me looks shocked>) but we learnt about history by drawing pretty pictures and writing very short, childish essays and having them stuck on the wall for parents to read. The age range for the school was 4-11, which I think is still typical for UK primary school education (even if the teaching methods may have changed).
Remembering *what* I learnt is a bit harder!
Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar is the only history I remember learning about, though there was more, I'm sure. But most lessons were on maths and English. The lessons that really stick in the mind are cookery lessons, art and pottery lessons, and PE and sports. All the hands on stuff. I guess everything else was boring at that age!
Once in secondary school, there were regular history lessons and a curriculum. Battle of Hastings, WW1, WW2, that sort of stuff. Then I never really looked at history again until university, and that was only briefly.
Really, Wikipedia re-awakened an interest in history for me.
But I am surprised that someone thought primary school kids would benefit from Wikipedia. The younger pupils will still be learning to read, and even the older pupils would probably benefit more from texts aimed at their level. I would have thought the first few years at secondary school (ages 11 to 13) would be more useful for Wikipedia to be used as background reading. By the time you get to GCSE and A-level, you would want students to be aware of how to use sources properly (and how to use Wikipedia properly, though that should still be taught from an early age).
And blogging and Twitter? Primary school education certainly has changed! :-)
Ah: "Every child would learn two key periods of British history" - that sounds about right.
"Of course pupils in primary school will learn about major periods including the Romans, the Tudors and the Victorians and will be taught to understand a broad chronology of major events in this country and the wider world." - that is an improvement on 20 years ago. I am almost certain I left primary school not knowing anything about the Romans, Victorians or Tudors. Actually, I left secondary school knowing nothing of British history between 1066 and 1900, but that is a different story.
The strange thing is, I picked up knowledge about the Romans and Victorians from *somewhere*. Maybe it was a form of osmosis from popular culture and museums and references in other books and from TV?
Carcharoth
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
The strange thing is, I picked up knowledge about the Romans and Victorians from *somewhere*. Maybe it was a form of osmosis from popular culture and museums and references in other books and from TV?
Doh! I studied Latin (and "Classical civilisation") at school! That explains it! :-)
And some of the memories of Victorian stuff from primary school, including learning about Florence Nightingale and Elizabeth Fry, are starting to resurface. OK, Fry (and Nelson) aren't exactly Victorian era, but it's close enough. And it seems that the focus was on people and events rather than broad eras and dates.
Carcharoth
Wikipedia in the school curriculum?
For me, the idea simply proves that Jimmy Wales was, as usual, far-sighted in his vision and judgement. I think I shall now follow his lead.
Time to home-school the kids.
Scott
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Wikipedia in the school curriculum?
For me, the idea simply proves that Jimmy Wales was, as usual, far-sighted in his vision and judgement. I think I shall now follow his lead.
Time to home-school the kids.
:-)
When I was in the sixth form a couple of years ago, we had a piece of research on some aspect of seventeenth century English history for prep. All 12 members of the class used Wikipedia, including myself. Being intimately familiar with Wikipedia's inherent unreliability, I also checked the source of the WP article and was saved from an embarrassing error that the other 11 members of the class regurgitated intact.
If the lesson is "don't trust Wikipedia" or "use Wikipedia with _extreme_ caution", then it is a worthwhile lesson.
I note that Sir Jim Rose, who came up with this lunatic idea, lacks a wikibio. Maybe he should have one so he can see how (cough) educational the wikiexperience is?
Personally, I think this is just a cunning plan to get hundreds of thousands of young Brits trained to use wikipedia, so we can control the right articles and edit the Empire back in. Two clicks and 1776 becomes a minor crushed uprising. The world map will be pink once again (virtually).
Maybe the "End of History" after all?
From across The Pond there's a wonderful book that came out in the mid-1990s
about how dreadful the teaching of history is at the secondary school level. The gap between high school and undergraduate instruction is greater for history than for any other subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me
Wikipedia opens new possibilities for correcting that problem.
Over here it went something like this:
*When we had our revolution we got help from France.
*Then we bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, which doubled the size of our country. Gee, thanks.
*Then we had the War of 1812, which didn't really happen in 1812, and we teamed up with France again.
Somewhere in there was 'Let them eat cake', a guillotine, Napoleon, and Waterloo. But that was all on another continent and unimportant. As long as we could be buddies with France whenever necessary, everything went fine.
-Durova On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I note that Sir Jim Rose, who came up with this lunatic idea, lacks a wikibio. Maybe he should have one so he can see how (cough) educational the wikiexperience is?
Personally, I think this is just a cunning plan to get hundreds of thousands of young Brits trained to use wikipedia, so we can control the right articles and edit the Empire back in. Two clicks and 1776 becomes a minor crushed uprising. The world map will be pink once again (virtually).
Maybe the "End of History" after all?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Durova wrote:
From across The Pond there's a wonderful book that came out in the mid-1990s about how dreadful the teaching of history is at the secondary school level. The gap between high school and undergraduate instruction is greater for history than for any other subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me
Wikipedia opens new possibilities for correcting that problem.
Over here it went something like this:
*When we had our revolution we got help from France.
*Then we bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, which doubled the size of our country. Gee, thanks.
*Then we had the War of 1812, which didn't really happen in 1812, and we teamed up with France again.
Somewhere in there was 'Let them eat cake', a guillotine, Napoleon, and Waterloo. But that was all on another continent and unimportant. As long as we could be buddies with France whenever necessary, everything went fine.
-Durova
A much more accurate account of world history can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_all_that
Durova wrote:
From across The Pond there's a wonderful book that came out in the mid-1990s
about how dreadful the teaching of history is at the secondary school level. The gap between high school and undergraduate instruction is greater for history than for any other subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me
Wikipedia opens new possibilities for correcting that problem.
Over here it went something like this:
*When we had our revolution we got help from France.
*Then we bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, which doubled the size of our country. Gee, thanks.
*Then we had the War of 1812, which didn't really happen in 1812, and we teamed up with France again.
Somewhere in there was 'Let them eat cake', a guillotine, Napoleon, and Waterloo. But that was all on another continent and unimportant. As long as we could be buddies with France whenever necessary, everything went fine.
-Durova On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Any decent history book opens the possibility to correct that problem. The notion that wikipedia is the solution to the problem of American historical illiteracy beggars belief.
On 26/03/2009, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Personally, I think this is just a cunning plan to get hundreds of thousands of young Brits trained to use wikipedia, so we can control the right articles and edit the Empire back in. Two clicks and 1776 becomes a minor crushed uprising. The world map will be pink once again (virtually).
Too late! According to the six degrees of wikipedia project:
http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~mu/wiki/
the central article (the article with the least number of clicks to anywhere) in the wikipedia is [[United Kingdom]]!
The British Empire is in control and you can't stop it :-p
<cue British national anthem>
p.s. thanks for spending the money to host it in Florida for us!
It's not so much American historical illiteracy *per se*, as the tendency of all countries to teach a superficial and patriotic approach to history until the university level, where most people don't study it. Arguably, that habit is at the root of our many nationalist edit disputes: each side quite sincerely advocating the 'neutral' view of history they studied in formal settings.
The optimist in me hopes that within a generation these perspectives will have changed significantly.
It was interesting, though, to compare the John Paul Jones biographies in English and in German (the sailor, not the bassist). In the United States Navy he's revered as the first national Naval hero. The German biography calmly introduces him as a pirate.
-Durova
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 26/03/2009, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Personally, I think this is just a cunning plan to get hundreds of thousands of young Brits trained to use wikipedia, so we can control the right articles and edit the Empire back in. Two clicks and 1776 becomes a minor crushed uprising. The world map will be pink once again (virtually).
Too late! According to the six degrees of wikipedia project:
http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~mu/wiki/
the central article (the article with the least number of clicks to anywhere) in the wikipedia is [[United Kingdom]]!
The British Empire is in control and you can't stop it :-p
<cue British national anthem>
p.s. thanks for spending the money to host it in Florida for us!
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
geni wrote:
2009/3/25 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Getting back to the original post.
How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average British school textbook?
-Durova
Probably more comprehensive in that no one has yet worked out how to make a text book 30 foot thick. On the other hand in say the case of WW1 wikipedia tends to focus on the battles, the tactics, the weapons and to an extent the politics rather than what life was like for the average solider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Life_in_the_trenches
probably comes closest.
Compare that with the length of:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
Currently UK school history likes to focus on life for the individual during certian events and some of the politics rather than wikipedia's focus on battles and dates. The reasons for this difference are complicated but it's hardly un-sterotypical for geeks to be interested in gadgets.
The former section could benefit from better sourcing, whereas the latter equipment is probably better documented.
These days general trench life is probably better documented than the unfortunate history of the St Chamond.
2009/3/25 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Getting back to the original post.
How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average British school textbook?
Almost certainly broader and deeper, but probably harder to understand. Our articles aren't really aimed at primary school children. Textbooks focus on just what school children are expected to study, which makes them far easier to teach from. I don't think Wikipedia will ever replace textbooks, that is Wikibooks job. Wikipedia will be used for school research projects.