[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Peter Damian]

I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users 
unless it is relevant to the subject of this thread, which is about the 
nature of education, whether educational content is appropriate for 
Wikipedia, and whether encyclopedia is improving its coverage of educational 
content since 2005.

Regarding 'academic' and 'educational'. These are not the same.  Friday's 
featured article 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/September_17,_2010 
is about the Ormulum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ormulum . This is a 
well-written article, which identifies the salient points and presents them 
clearly and in a way that interests the reader.  It is not too long, and it 
covers a subject which is not trivial or ephemeral.  But it is not academic. 
It is not written in an academic style, it does not present original 
research, and so on.  It is a presentation of an academic subject intended 
to appeal to a mass audience.

Supporting my original claim, the article was mostly completed by 2005 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ormulum&oldid=29012831 .  Note 
also that the two main authors of the article appear to have stopped 
contributing.  If I were donating to Wikipedia, I would want to know why 
such talented editors were no longer contributing, and what efforts were 
being made to get them back.  (Please note: I was not involved in writing 
this article).

With every kind wish,

Peter