2009/7/19 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:

All comments gratefully received!

I'll comment as I read - please excuse me not using a sandwich technique!

Slide 2: Where does the 900,000 contributors come from? Not all use pseudonyms, "registered users" would be better. The WMF prefers not to be thought of as a publisher for legal reasons - I would go for "hosted".

Slide 4: I think statements are better than questions for this kind of thing. As far as I know, you aren't leading a discussion session. The slides should summarise what you are saying.

Slide 5: There is some non-free content in Wikipedia. While fair use images should be reusable as part of the articles in which they appear, they may not be reusable in their own right.

Slide 6: An example with references would be better. (It looks like you've removed the references because there were too many - find an example with a more reasonable number so you can include them.)

Slide 7: I'd rather WMUK didn't draw conclusions about how child-friendly Wikipedia is. Present the facts and let people make up their own minds. Personally, I think it is perfectly child-friendly, since I don't see any harm coming from exposure to sex and violence.

Slide 9: Bear in mind that the Nature study is several years old now. Wikipedia has changed a lot since then.

Slide 10: Typo: an->a. I wouldn't recommend COIs - drop the school bit.

Slide 12: WikiSpecies is hardly one of our major projects. I would replace it with Wiktionary (I would also spell "Wiktionary" correction! ;)).

Ok, those are my negative comments. Positive comment (half a sandwich, at least!): I think you've chosen the correct material. You are prioritising the right stuff. Just make sure you time yourself going through it (out loud) to make sure you can fit it all in. Good luck!