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

[Phil Nash]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/3/25 Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>>> 2009/3/25 Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>>>> I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies
>>>>>> some sort of value-judgement.
>>>>>
>>>>> UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot,
>>>>> rather than details of historical events.
>>>
>>> Probably more recent than my 1950s primary school history, which
>>> IIRC, was more about dates and events rather than people, and my
>>> 1960s history education was more about politics than anything else.
>>> Social history might just as well have been a foreign language when
>>> I was taught. Let's just say it didn't relate to my experience of
>>> life, and thus failed to light my fire.
>>
>> Indeed, history education has changed a lot since then! When I was in
>> primary school (10+ years ago) we hardly learned any dates, it was
>> all about what life was like during that period.

That brings it down to a level one can relate to, but it has to be within 
the wider context. That may come later, but if the initial teaching does not 
make that magic happen, students can be lost for ever. Starting from a 
personal account relating to say, the [[English Civil War]] makes the 
effects of the political machinations very real. The same applies to the 
personal accounts of the American Civil War, which bring home to a student 
the practical effects of political decisions; this contextual teaching may 
be somewhat modern, but to my mind it is somewhat more useful than its 
predecessors.