Fred Bauder wrote:
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211 references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected article I had started, encouraged by a professor who had set groups the task of improving historical pages. The article was better than before, but there were some basic issues with what they did that required a little more than the addition of "house style" by me.
Charles
Fred Bauder wrote:
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211 references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected article I had started, encouraged by a professor who had set groups the task of improving historical pages. The article was better than before, but there were some basic issues with what they did that required a little more than the addition of "house style" by me.
Charles
No surprise there; you're an experienced Wikipedia editor, and with lots of additional material to work with, can do much better than a bunch of newbies, however scholarly.
Fred Bauder
As for the article on Horse, I hope this wasn't the real example used in class, because by the time the letter was written, it still had no references. The current state of the article is due to the subsequent improvements by a number of experienced Wikipedians.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211 references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected article I had started, encouraged by a professor who had set groups the task of improving historical pages. The article was better than before, but there were some basic issues with what they did that required a little more than the addition of "house style" by me.
Charles
No surprise there; you're an experienced Wikipedia editor, and with lots of additional material to work with, can do much better than a bunch of newbies, however scholarly.
Fred Bauder
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211 references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected article I had started, encouraged by a professor who had set groups the task of improving historical pages. The article was better than before, but there were some basic issues with what they did that required a little more than the addition of "house style" by me.
Charles
No surprise there; you're an experienced Wikipedia editor, and with lots of additional material to work with, can do much better than a bunch of newbies, however scholarly.
No, I meant something a bit different. The article you posted seemed to take the epistemology as the basic "lesson": if you tell me we "know" that, what do you mean by "know"? It's a reasonable assumption that being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can be described as "known" would prove educational, say in the early teenage years. The article was on the first poetry anthology published in English, and the question I would have is more about general relevance of content. Just one statement: the first edition had many poems containing religious commentary that were taken out in later editions. OK, fine, if you know the publication date was 1557, the year before Mary Tudor died, you are going to ask more and different questions, not just "how do we know that?" which can probably be established by putting two books side by side. (This is about [[Tottel's Miscellany]], by the way.)
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
The article you posted seemed to take the epistemology as the basic "lesson": if you tell me we "know" that, what do you mean by "know"? It's a reasonable assumption that being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can be described as "known" would prove educational, say in the early teenage years. The article was on the first poetry anthology published in English, and the question I would have is more about general relevance of content. Just one statement: the first edition had many poems containing religious commentary that were taken out in later editions. OK, fine, if you know the publication date was 1557, the year before Mary Tudor died, you are going to ask more and different questions, not just "how do we know that?" which can probably be established by putting two books side by side. (This is about [[Tottel's Miscellany]], by the way.)
There is an unfortunate tendency for current day editors to view the history of past centuries in a more compressed manner than warranted. The article in question includes the sentence: "It is generally included with Elizabethan era literature even if it was, in fact, published in 1557, a year before Elizabeth I took the throne." That doesn't mention Mary at all. It ignores the effect of the less than Catholic Elizabeth's rule in comparison to that of her sister.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
The article you posted seemed to take the epistemology as the basic "lesson": if you tell me we "know" that, what do you mean by "know"? It's a reasonable assumption that being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can be described as "known" would prove educational, say in the early teenage years. The article was on the first poetry anthology published in English, and the question I would have is more about general relevance of content. Just one statement: the first edition had many poems containing religious commentary that were taken out in later editions. OK, fine, if you know the publication date was 1557, the year before Mary Tudor died, you are going to ask more and different questions, not just "how do we know that?" which can probably be established by putting two books side by side. (This is about [[Tottel's Miscellany]], by the way.)
There is an unfortunate tendency for current day editors to view the history of past centuries in a more compressed manner than warranted. The article in question includes the sentence: "It is generally included with Elizabethan era literature even if it was, in fact, published in 1557, a year before Elizabeth I took the throne." That doesn't mention Mary at all. It ignores the effect of the less than Catholic Elizabeth's rule in comparison to that of her sister.
Well, quite, except for ... everything. I'm certainly going to be sorry I brought this all up. Tottel apparently marketed his book on the strength of contributions by [[Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey]], executed in 1547 by Henry VIII about two weeks before he died. Our article about Surrey manages to mention that he was a poet and to say nothing at all about his poetry. Now - apparently - Surrey was a worse poet than Wyatt, but more of a draw so got star billing in the Miscellany (publishers haven't changed a bit in 450 years). Mary Tudor thought what about the allegation that Surrey was going to usurp the throne from Edward VI, the reason he was beheaded? Edward was the one who was really less-than-Catholic. Was Surrey rehabilitated under Mary? Seems quite possible given the Howards' place generally on the religious question..
Yes, I suppose I'd prefer to be worrying about points I made myself, rather than brought up by pesky college kids.
Charles