[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Nathan]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.

So you're arguing that this article is educational, but not academic,
yet you acknowledge that subject itself is "academic." I think that is
the sticking point; others see things that can be educational but not
academic (neither an academic subject, nor in an academic style), but
you appear to disagree. There is more to education than what is taught
at Oxbridge.

As for progress since 2005 - unless I'm mistaken, all of your own work
dates to after 2005. Would you not describe your own work as improving
the encyclopedia from its 2005 state?

Nathan