On Thu, October 16, 2008 14:53, Andrew Gray wrote: This was my first thought too. Just as the BBC wiped loads of tv programmes to re-use the tapes then later wished they hadn't so a school might decide to "re-use" the keydrive (or a student might think it is 'fun') so I'd push the DVD as the primary option by a long way as it is guaranteed to stay around (hell I've just discovered a load of data CDs from the mid-90s which are still usable) Alison

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia(a)alisonwheeler.com> wrote: Presuming this will be available for download, the information could always be copied back onto the drive if it's writeable... -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

This is all handy but doesn't answer my question on what phrasing to use. In answer to the advice, people who ask can be sent DVDs which we will burn in thousands. These are more expensive than downloads but more accessible. Memory sticks will be sent out to a few journalists to review (in which case the balance of risk that they wipe and keep is ok), to warm schools which we already know have it on their intranet and possibly to some other Wikipedia folk who have a known track record of going around schools (in Bangalore or whereever) and loading them onto a lot of computers and intranets. Oh and possibly the new UK WP board if they want. Andrew On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2008/10/16 Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>om>: (where, of course, "45,000" is replaced by whatever the actual number is) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: What does "checked" mean? Verified accurate? (I presume not.) Child-friendly? Better to be precise if possible. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

thanx for help. Gone for Curriculum-based offline Wikipedia: 40,000 child-checked articles & images The other angles (that we are basically making Wikipedia content more accessible) we will cover in press release and accompanying letters. Since you ask on "checking", the checking was such a labour of love I am not even sure we will manage it again. For the record, we had volunteers who were a mixture of students, ex-schools teachers and a few other professionals who went through the version histories of articles, choose two versions by "credible" editors reasonably apart (a month and edits by five editors) , checked the diffs for vandalism, choose the better version, skim read the article, noted sections or text strings for deletion if they looked dubious (do parsnips really induce photosensitivity which is unsourced?). We also took a conscious decision to remove most info about sexual orientation and scandal in biogs, also reduce the volume in year pages of serial killers and terrorist acts to try to get good news/bad news in kilter. A reasonable sample of each volunteers work was double checked by one of two office staff. In some cases (the year pages for example) the volunteers were pretty thorough in checking facts at least for consistency with Wikipedia biogs and we corrected WP a fair bit. In others a recent version by a good quality editor with no vandalism in diffs versus a month earlier was used without much challenge. We then ran a rude word checker and re-choose or deleted where we hit c*** f*** p**** (except birth control and a couple of others) incest (except Anne Boleyn where it was on her death warrant) and a couple of other strings. The only problem with this is some quotations in biogs are now inaccurate to the tune of missing redundant "f***ing". Such is life. I notice already one teachers discussion forum has a teacher congratulating us on getting the difficult part of the Inca history correct "unlike the main Wikipedia". Of course, that was just version selection to a good editor. Andrew On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

2008/10/17 Andrew Cates <Andrew(a)soschildren.org>rg>: It's probably too late now, but I'd quibble this sounds like the children did the checking ;-) Is that 40,000 articles with images, or 40,000 articles plus images in total? Ha! Might be worth noting that on the discussion page, someone'll be pleased... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

"child-suitable"?

2008/10/17 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: There are two sides to something being good for children, though. It needs to be "safe" (personally, I have more faith in children's abilities to deal with the fact that Mr X had an affair with his pool-boy, but I understand the creators wanting to avoid controversy and get the content used rather than using it as a means to campaign against censorship) and it also needs to be understandable by children. "Child-safe" only covers the first of those, "child-suitable" covers both. (I understand the reluctance to call it "friendly", but I think "suitable" is ok since it means children should be able to copy with it rather than meaning they will find it easy to work with.)