cheers Tango!

Comments in-line

----- "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 19 July, 2009 22:30:11 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Presentation - Wikipedia in Schools

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?

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansContributors.htm. Note this is all languages - 928,022 is exact figure

I think I'll change it to 95,000 - the figure for "Active Wikipedians"

Not all use pseudonyms, "registered users" would be better.

"Registered users" is a good phrase to use when talking to wikipedians but I'm not sure someone outside will know what this means. I came across "pseudonym" as a description for usernames when reading a few external articles - more accurate than "anonymous".

Of course some people use their real names, but the norm seems to be pseudonyms - like "Tango" for instance - and I think thats all thats needed fotr a general introduction like this,

The WMF prefers not to be thought of as a publisher for legal reasons - I would go for "hosted".

I agree. "Hosted" sounds a bit to little - I'll go with "operated" which is how the Foundation terms it here, for instance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e5/WP_Key_Facts_jun_2009....

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.

Changed. Although I've put it as a presentation, they've asked for it to be as interactive as possible, but I agree these shouldn't be in as questions.

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.

Good point - i've amended.

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.)

Not clear from the slide notes, but the purpose of this slide is to show how one third party attributes text copied from Wikipedia - I'll circle the "the source of this article is Wikipedia, the free enclyclopedia. The text of ..." and add this to the notes.

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.

I'm talking to primary school teachers here as well as secondary school teachers. From the schools Wikipedia website: "Wikipedia is not necessarily a childsafe environment and has "adult" content."

I'll change it to use their wordings.

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

True, and the study was very limited anyway. However, I'm not aware of any other studies that have been done.

Slide 10: Typo: an->a.

Good spot!

I wouldn't recommend COIs - drop the school bit.

Changed.

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

It isn't, but it contains lots of educational material, which I could imagine teachers using. I've added Wiktionary though, spelt correctly!

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!

Cheers! I've got 20 minutes to do 10 slides (well, 10 with material on it) which seems about right.

I'll let you know how I get on.

Andrew