geni wrote: 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.

Thomas Dalton wrote: 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.

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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

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(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a01006d90903251727w12acbd0cma73bc8be476d6036@mail.gmail.com...

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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

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?

Durova wrote: A much more accurate account of world history can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_all_that

On 26/03/2009, doc &lt;doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: 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.

2009/3/25 Phil Nash &lt;pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt;uk>: 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. These days general trench life is probably better documented than the unfortunate history of the St Chamond. -- geni