[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory

[geni]

2009/3/25 Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk>:
> geni wrote:
>>> 2009/3/25 Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com>:
>>>> Getting back to the original post.
>>>>
>>>> How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average
>>>> British school textbook?
>>>>
>>>> -Durova
>>>
>>> Probably more comprehensive in that no one has yet worked out how to
>>> make a text book 30 foot thick. On the other hand in say the case of
>>> WW1 wikipedia tends to focus on the battles, the tactics, the weapons
>>> and to an extent the politics rather than what life was like for the
>>> average solider.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Life_in_the_trenches
>>>
>>> probably comes closest.
>>>
>>> Compare that with the length of:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Chamond_(tank)
>
> I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort
> of value-judgement.

Currently UK school history likes to focus on life for the individual
during certian events and some of the politics rather than wikipedia's
focus on battles and dates. The reasons for this difference are
complicated but it's hardly un-sterotypical for geeks to be interested
in gadgets.

> The former section could benefit from better sourcing,
> whereas the latter equipment is probably better documented.

These days general trench life is probably better documented than the
unfortunate history of the St Chamond.

-- 
geni