Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:EDUCATION)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Education (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Review of bigotry in many articles[edit]

Would the WikiProject Education teams, and editors consider helping remove bigoted articles (racist, sexist, etc) from wikipedia? This would be very helpful in ending racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry that exist in Wikipedia articles and society at large. I have been blocked from editing on many occasions for simply trying to edit articles that reflect only racist, sexist tones. I now only add comments to the Talk Pages of such articles because I fear the bullies will block me again. This is no different than when dictators, etc squash free speech by blocking writers, burning books, etc, only today it happens also in the digital world and there seems to be no group protecting the free speech of non-racists, online. Thanks.

January 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Franz Joseph Spiegler (Umkreis) Anna lehrt Maria das Lesen.jpg
Woman teaching geometry.jpg

January 2017

Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

Category:Princeton University alumni subcategories by decade??[edit]

Does anyone know where the discussion occurred that allowed for all of the subcategories that breaks up Category:Princeton University alumni by decade? I think it's a dangerous trend to set and makes navigation unnecessarily difficult. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit suggestion for Coursera page[edit]

I've placed a suggestion for deleting a section on Coursera's talk page. However since there have been no replies to the older comments (since mid 2012) it was suggested to to me to place my comment here (the talk page of the WikiProject that follow the page) and ask for inputs.

  • I'd like to work on removing this 'This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.' and as a first step would like to delete section named Partners.

Coursera already has the list on their own website and being a for-profit organisation I'm sure the list is uptodate at all times. So is there a need for this section in Wikipedia? Also to keep the list updated, one will have to continuously search the web for articles that announce new partnerships. Is there a need to do this for Coursera?

  • Also I'd appreciate if someone could tell me which sections are written like an advert. So I could try to work on that specific section.

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Roshni Kanchan, it's important to cover the company's partnerships if they're covered in reliable, secondary sources. To remove the advertising tone, I'd start with replacing all sections sourced to the Coursera website with reliable, secondary sources. Everything that wasn't important enough to be said in the independent source should be removed from the article. czar 17:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

UNESCO Education experts suggesting open license text from UNESCO education publications that can be added to Wikipedia[edit]

Pencil-ruler icon.png

Dear all

UNESCO have recently assigned a subject matter expert to recommend sections of open license UNESCO education publications that can be copied into Wikipedia by volunteers, they are also adding some to articles themselves.

Please take a look and try it out for yourselves.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Education.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Education, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

American Field Service and Friends of France[edit]

There is an American Field Service (AFS) page which you note has multiple problems. I have notified my contact at AFS of your concerns. There is no Friends of France page on Wikipedia. A brief history of the Friends of France is given on the American Field Service page. The American Field Service evolved from the Friends of France. The Friends of France was strictly a volunteer ambulance organization during WW I. They had a 3 volume history published after the war. Of course, much of this material is not important today except to scholars. If I created a Friends of France page which would be more detailed than the AFS history would it be considered repetitious? I did suggest to the AFS that when my work was done they should split their page in two. The AFS did not come into being until after the Friends of France finished their work and ceased to exist. Nicodemus (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Oldsilenus, we create articles based on their coverage in reliable, secondary sources. It would totally depend on what has been written about the subject in publications with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy (newspapers, magazines, blogs of similar stature, etc.) czar 17:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)