[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Lesson Plan

[Charles Matthews]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>> The article you posted seemed to
>> take the epistemology as the basic "lesson": if you tell me we "know" 
>> that, what do you mean by "know"? It's a reasonable assumption that 
>> being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can 
>> be described as "known" would prove educational, say in the early 
>> teenage years. The article was on the first poetry anthology 
>> published in English, and the question I would have is more about 
>> general relevance of content. Just one statement: the first edition 
>> had many poems containing religious commentary that were taken out in 
>> later editions. OK, fine, if you know the publication date was 1557, 
>> the year before Mary Tudor died, you are going to ask more and 
>> different questions, not just "how do we know that?" which can 
>> probably be established by putting two books side by side. (This is 
>> about [[Tottel's Miscellany]], by the way.)
>>
>>   
>
> There is an unfortunate tendency for current day editors to view the 
> history of past centuries in a more compressed manner than warranted. 
> The article in question includes the sentence: "It is generally 
> included with Elizabethan era literature even if it was, in fact, 
> published in 1557, a year before Elizabeth I took the throne." That 
> doesn't mention Mary at all. It ignores the effect of the less than 
> Catholic Elizabeth's rule in comparison to that of her sister.
>
Well, quite, except for ... everything. I'm certainly going to be sorry 
I brought this all up. Tottel apparently marketed his book on the 
strength of contributions by [[Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey]], executed 
in 1547 by Henry VIII about two weeks before he died. Our article about 
Surrey manages to mention that he was a poet and to say nothing at all 
about his poetry. Now - apparently - Surrey was a worse poet than Wyatt, 
but more of a draw so got star billing in the Miscellany (publishers 
haven't changed a bit in 450 years). Mary Tudor thought what about the 
allegation that Surrey was going to usurp the throne from Edward VI, the 
reason he was beheaded? Edward was the one who was really 
less-than-Catholic. Was Surrey rehabilitated under Mary? Seems quite 
possible given the Howards' place generally on the religious question..

Yes, I suppose I'd prefer to be worrying about points I made myself, 
rather than brought up by pesky college kids.

Charles