Talk:Wikipedia for Schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/12/06. The result of the discussion was keep.

See also talk pages at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Test_Version, Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia-CD/Download and [[1]]

I'm interested in knowing more about the Wikipedia 2006 CD. Can someone, who knows much about it, tell me more about it and how it can be purchased? Thanks. -- Qasamaan 15:54; November 27th, 2006 (UTC)
It is available as a free download from the links given in the article. The link to the SOS site gives some more info. The 2007 version should be available in a month or so. --BozMo talk 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"unsuitable"[edit]

In all honesty, this page looks like someone forgot the "Wikipedia:" prefix when creating it. It's written in a very dated (Early 2006?) seeming manner, and also inappropriately references a non-articelspace page for "See also", has a disclaimer that may not belong here. For reference, the German interwikilink links to something in their version of Wikipedia:space, and I suspect this would do much better there then as an articel. 68.39.174.238 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am open to the discussion. It got moved from Wikipedia: (by me) where it lived when it was a wikipedia project. Now it is in the open domain, mentioned in 20 or so blogs, with news articles written on it in magazines (including one in Norwegian), in interviews with a Wikimedia board member and it has had 35,000 downloads. It is sufficiently prevalent to mean that someone in India is running off copies and flogging them on India eBay. I went through about 20 articles on namespce about websites and publications before I moved it and didn't think it was less notable. Presumably notability is the main challenge? NPOV I am happy tidying a bit. The review on TorrentFreak pointed out that the selection wasn't actually done in by Wikipedia editors, which probably should be mentioned. The German point is a good one though (perhaps conventions on namespace versus Wiki space aren't exactly the same). The comparisons with other UK listed publications though is important too. What do other people think? --BozMo talk 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice try: move the debate to where you can win it. Notability is the one thing you have got (Google settles that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wikipedia+cd%22+%22SOS+Children%22&btnG=Search&meta= or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%222006+Wikipedia+CD%22+) but the article is POV (need something comparing rival project(s)... not written by you). Also inappropriate language. --83.146.0.146 12:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I will assume in good faith that your slightly personal attack was humour... and go and invite someone from another project to contribute. --BozMo talk 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the disputed tag. Housekeeping and article cleanup suggestions do not a dispute make. -- Paleorthid 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added a cleanup tag instead as it still (IMAO) does not read correctly for an articel. 68.39.174.238 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

I'm not doubting the contents here, however very specific things seem to be entirely without explanation of how they're known, EG. the 2007 version (Has this been announced anywhere?), the proof of concept bit (Was this explicitly mentioned anywhere?), etc. My main concern is since this is closely related to us and alot of it would be "1st hand knowledge", it could be very easy to totally inadvertently include some original research by accident. 68.39.174.238 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll track the charity announcement on 2007 if they've made one yet. The proof of concept is somewhere on Meta I think. The tidy up is a reasonably point too. When I've had a go in a week or two I will post a note on your talk page. --BozMo talk 11:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about an unabridged wikipedia DVD?[edit]

I'm sure a lot of the large size images would have to be stripped still though. The Ipod version is 1.5 GB but you need an ipod and special software to use it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.16.150.254 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Not in principle a bad idea but you need to discuss it at the Version 1.0 project pages I think --BozMo talk 10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point[edit]

Some comments from my talk page about the article:

Is a very short 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection page in the Wikipedia:Project namespace and a separate, longer article in the main namespace workable?

The project namespace article is needed to support and link to Editorial Team project activities:

  1. A basic intro and timeline.
  2. A discussion of how it relates to other project activities.
  3. The Category:Wikipedia release version work, added by Markco1 a few day ago, would apply here.
  4. The {{WPCD}} template would link here.


other reference[edit]

Anyone up to reading http://www.mastermagazine.info/informes/11041.php and telling us what it says --BozMo talk 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GFDL?[edit]

What about GFDL? The online version mentions Wikipedia but there is no direct link to each article and its history. If it fails to follow the GFDL in online version where it is so easy to provide a link, the CD version probably is breaking it too (the CD should have the full history included). geraki 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the GFDL actually require this? The link back convention etc is surely all in the oral tradition and interpretation around the GFDL not in the actual text. Anyway, that discussion I think belongs on the project pages discussion not the article space discussion. On the fact tags, is it ok to link to the relevant point in WP project space? It is a self-reference of a sort but given the article had established notability isn't the project space pages now a primary source? --80.225.169.237 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the project space reference is Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Torrent_Project#More_informative_file_names I guess I could add it --BozMo talk 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I moved the link on you guys (archived it) Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Torrent_Project/Archive_4#More_informative_file_names

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nominaladversary (talkcontribs) 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Using blogs as sources[edit]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to use criticism from arguably non-reliable blogs. Their criticisms are not based on independent third-party evaluation, but on a single persons opinion. They don't meet the WP policies of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL. Is there any reason for referencing the two blogs mentioned in the criticism section?? MaxwellThomas 14:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit difficult as a policy think. The blogs are not being used as a reference for any fact other than their own opinions, for which they are a primary source. I think the correct question is whether the opinions of the blogs are notable in this case rather than whether the blogs are good sources for facts. Personally I think TorrentFreak is probably an important enough blog to be notable. The primary schools one may be notable in its field but that's marginal. --BozMo talk 12:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Blogs are generally non-notable and not suitable as sources. We must be able to come up with better criticism than that. Secretlondon 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unreliable and common blogs should never get quoted in the wikipedia article. Blogs are just view points of the authors and quoting in in article page diputes the NPOV policy of wikipedia. We should remove them. Phoe6 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't notable[edit]

If it were a CD release by any other organisation, we'd delete the article as spam. --kingboyk 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Wikipedia_CD_Selection where this point was discussed at length --BozMo talk 11:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
another BBC mention at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6566749.stm by the way --81.168.125.158 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Notability[edit]

I took the notability flag off because usually by the time an article has gone through and AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Wikipedia_CD_Selection where notability is discussed you wouldn't reflag it. In my view the flags exist for articles whose existence hasn't been discussed. If you disagree feel free to explain.--BozMo talk 06:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles included[edit]

I was intrigued to know which articles were put onto the cd - any ideas ? LeeVJ (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 one has an article list here: [2]. The 2007 one here: subject index. The 2008/9 one is being worked on at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates. --BozMo talk 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks :) LeeVJ (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Official releases"?[edit]

Where exactly do I find them?? --193.166.137.75 (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And has there been no new release in the past three years? Has the notion gone obsolete? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No, a new release is expected soon. And the old release has about 5 million users so not obsolete. --BozMo talk 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm somewhat surprized there is no information about this in the article, nor any links to articles about Wikipedia 1.0, Wikipedia Zero, and any other portable or expurgated Wikipedias that may be in circulation, preparation or proposal. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, agree/ the article is kind of in limbo between being about the first offline release (which achieved some notability at the time) versus being an ongoing project with relationships to other offline projects (which is covered a bit at the Wikipedia project page). I guess may be only the first got the coverage to achieve notability. Maybe. Or something. --BozMo talk 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Anthonygerrard. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia CD SelectionWikipedia for Schools – the Wikipedia CD Selection has been called "Wikipedia for Schools" since 2007 (see http://schools-wikipedia.org). "Wikipedia CD Selection" no longer reflects the nature of the project - the 2008/9 edition was released onto DVD, while the latest version (released 2013) is being released onto USB. JamieG01 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.