Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Old talk

I remember that several people have launched small school and university projects, showing their students Wikipedia. In these cases there was usually a brief flurry of edits from the students of the class/group, and then it stopped. It would be nice to have some actual evaluation of these projects, with further analysis and description of the methodology. Unfortunately the only one I can still associate with an identity is the one User:KF told me about. There were also a couple of projects on the German Wikipedia, but these probably don't belong here. Could any of you who still remember, or even have participated in, some of the past projects on the English Wikipedia add the respective information to the newly created Wikipedia:School and university projects page? Thanks! --Eloquence 06:21 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Me and a few of my friends who were studying for our advanced level (pre-university) exams here in Britain this summer used Wikipedia as a revision tool, writing articles from our notes. For example, Tell England was one of the novels I studied for my English literature exam. This should be promoted. CGS 13:02 16 Jul 2003 (UTC).
I'm currently having 80 students contribute to HK entries and will be polling them at the end to get their feedback. I would love to write it up not only as a summary for Wikipedians, but for other journalism and online educators as well. Please see my talk page and leave me advice on what questions to put on the survey. (Fuzheado 13:25 16 Jul 2003 (UTC))

Thanks all for advice on survey questions. The project has now ended, though students are still showing enthusiasm in editing and fixing things. Do you folks have any suggestions where I should put a long-ish evaluation of the projet?

Maybe at your own user subpage like User:Fuzheado/HKU project evalution? --Lorenzarius 09:58 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I recommend using Wikipedia:School and university projects/Interactive Media, News and Communication. I'd like to see the reports kept togther as subpages of the school projects page. -- Stephen Gilbert 04:41 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Seems the issue is even more confusing now, as the page [[1]] has been created with an incredibly unwieldy title. Any one with more experience care to address how best to file these project writeups? Fuzheado 00:55, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Teaching with the WikiPedia - curriculum development project

Hello all. This is my first post here.

I'm thinking about developing a "Teaching with the WikiPedia" curriculum. It would be aimed at kids from about grades four through eight (US). The idea is for the kids to use the WikiPedia as the main reference source to complete their assignments, but also to understand the special issues associated with it. For example They might look up civil rights on the Wiki. What do they see? How to the entries in the Wikipedia differ from what they may see in a mainstream encyclopedia? Is it better or worse? Does the ability to edit other people's work improve the content, or is it a chance for personal opinions and political philosophies to creep into the entries?

I think this could be a great teaching tool because of the classroom discussions it would inspire. But this prompts two questions.

1) I don't want to re-invent the wheel. Is anyone else working on this?

2) I worry that kids, being kids, will quickly figure out they can add to the Wikipedia, and they will make a mess of it. (Swear words, spam, etc.) I know that's the way I would have behavved if left unsupervised back in 7th grade. So I'm thinking of creating a read-only version of the Wikipedia just for use in this curriculum. That would solve potential vandalism, of course. But it would sort of also change the way The Wiki operates for them. (Though this might be a necessary compromise.)

Thoughts? --Shawn McCarthy 

 service@diagonalmediagroup.com
Regarding your second question, I'd have to say that this would be wrong. If they're using a pedia they can't edit, they might as well use some other (and officially approved thinking about school) pedia. I think there's a kid-wikipedia being made somewhere, I read about it here not so long ago. Maybe you could use that instead? I want that everyone can edit, but I don't want 11 year olds spamming the place, either. - Sigg3.net 15:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think we can handle a class-full of kids trying to muck about with articles. We've had far worse! There's a textbook wiki project, that might be what you're looking for -- Tarquin 17:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, you might want to try finding that kid-friendly Wiki. In addition to academic subjects, this 'pedia discusses some subjects you may not want kids delving into. For an example of what I mean, you probably wouldn't want kids following all the links from human sexuality. —Frecklefoot 18:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, why do that when they could be looking up porn with Google? ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 06:23, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That's the web. -- till we *) 18:14, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a great project, Shawn - it'd be interesting to see how they rate Wikipedia versus competing universities. Go for it - preferably allow them to edit, because not being able to edit is going to change the feel of wikipedia considerably. Martin 14:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good/bad idea to require a class to submit articles as a writing assignment?

This section moved from the Village pump

I'm teaching a course on the social aspects of computer security, and my students (bright computer science students, mostly) need to write a paper. I'm trying to expose them to real-world, collaborative writing (as an alternative to the standard college paper), and the thought occurred to me that I could do this by requiring them to create a Wikipedia article on some aspect of computer security that isn't covered (there are quite a few of these). I would require them to read the essential how-to articles (e.g., on NPOV) and submit the draft to me before posting. One problem from the outset would be that they would have to understand the intellectual property concerns... I don't think I could do this unless they all assented, for one thing. What other concerns spring to your mind about this? Is it overall a terrible or perhaps a good idea?

Many thanks Bryan Pfaffenberger University of Virginia

See Wikipedia:School and university projects. Rmhermen 16:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Something that's not covered in the above page and I've always wondered about, what do Profs think of the concept that a required assignment involves the release of work into the public domain? (or near enough, via GFDL) I mean, what if some student didn't want to do so? -Vina 18:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suppose the student would just hand over the work for marking, and it wouldn't get put on the Internet. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with making assessed work public, unless it was published anonymously - just for the sake of individual privacy. Since in this case Prof. Pfaffenberger is acting as a "filter", he could arrange for the articles to be put up in such a way that they couldn't be traced back to the individual student. My university (in the UK) claims copyright over all materials submitted for examination, so this may be an issue as well. AlexG 19:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Normal practice in the U.S. is that a student retains copyright over materials submitted for class assignments. Are you saying that in the UK you don't have copyright over your own dissertation?
Once you submit an exam paper, project, etc., the university owns it and you will probably never see it again. They also claim they can reproduce your work for their own nefarious purposes, like staff training or as an example to others. This is also the case for most public examinations (GCSE, A-level, etc.). Something like a PhD thesis might well be different, though. AlexG 20:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think this must vary between universities (and possibly departments within them). At mine, they go to some lengths to point out that students still own the rights to work we submit, and even advise us against signing anything saying otherwise if we, for example, collaborate with an external company for a major project. The only variation is that we're assumed to have implicitly granted the Department a license to read and keep copies of our work in order to mark it. -- Pete
On the more immediate topic, I think this computer security thing would be great, as long as everyone understands that their work will be "edited mercilessly" and possibly deleted if it doesn't meet our criteria. -- Jmabel 20:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
We JUST had a major invasion of a group of Dartmouth College students who made lots of additions of articles which became a major article of contention as to their noteworthiness. PLEASE, make sure they understand not to write about trivia, but about actual articles that they might expect to find in an encyclopedia. RickK 20:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
In general, I think this is a great idea, but I agree with User:RickK about the possible problem. If you think there are quite a few topics that need articles, it might help if you were to compile a list of them, and require preclearance of the topic if a student wants to write about something else. One point I'm not clear on is the role of the Wikipedia collaboration process as it relates to the course. Are the students graded on what they give you, and then they get whatever benefit they get from watching other people edit their work? You'd have a problem if you tried to base their grade on their participation in the subsequent editing, because it's quite possible that some articles will attract many contributors while others will just sit there in their original form. JamesMLane 08:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Instead of a list of article topics, perhaps just point them to the list of requested articles? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! We're always glad when educators take an interest in our project, and are very glad you've arrived. I second RickK's comments and also ask you to remind your students that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be written in an encyclopedic style, not an essay style. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been thinking of this myself but decided against it. Your idea of exposing them to "real-world, collaborative writing" sounds very interesting but if you ask that they give the draft to you before posting then that surely doesn't show collaboration as they will simply have written it by themselves. Further, as stated above writing a paper is somewhat different to writing an article for an ecyclopedia. The alternative I looked at was getting them to look at the history of a compsci topic and seeing how the article developed, writing about the changes made over time and, in particular, any disputes. However, finding such an article about which you could write a decent essay may be rather difficult. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

  • Wikipedia:School and university projects is excellent
  • Copyright - Very important. At Univ. of Virginia, students, faculty, and staff own their creative works (with certain exceptions). Before I could ask my students to do this, I would need to educate them about the GFDL and, I think, obtain their written consent.
  • Encyclopedia - Yes. They'd follow the guidelines, and they'd be graded on how well they implemented them.
  • Real-world collaboration - what I had in mind was that the students would watch and comment on what happens after the articles are posted. Not every contribution would receive attention, of course, but my plan is that we'd share our experiences. My own experience with Wikipedia has been very positive - in fact, I don't think I really believed in collaborative writing before I started contributing to Wikipedia. I haven't liked every change, of course, but most of these were subsequently fixed by someone else.

Let me add, too, that I see this exercise as an opportunity to teach my students something about the virtues of open, free, disinterested discourse in science and scholarship. At many universities, particularly in science and engineering, it's increasingly common to hold back on publishing important new findings -- an act that could, after all, compromise one's ability to obtain a patent. At the same time, the Bush administration is pushing to impose limits on foreigners' access to scientific and engineering information. In this setting, asking students to do some work with Wikipedia might expose them to a value system that resembles that of traditional science and scholarship:

(1) Scientists and scholars should not try to profit personally from their work, but on the contrary they should make their research data, findings, and writings freely, openly, and globally available in the conviction that this will lead to the advancement of humanity; and

(2) Knowledge advances, not merely because of the achievements of individuals, but because their achievements are collaboratively amended, critiqued, annotated, sliced, diced, chopped, and reformulated by their colleagues and peers.

Rather like Wikipedia, huh?

Bryan Pfaffenberger University of Virginia

Now that should be quoted somewhere. Derrick Coetzee 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pfaffenberger's manifesto says it all. I move its incorporated in the beginner's welcome page Apwoolrich 15:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End moved discussion

Prison project

I am a warden at the maximum security Leavenworth Penitentiary and am involved in working with inmates on a range of education programs including basic literacy, GED, parenting programs and trying to offer opportunities for inmates who want to improve themselves to collaborate on constructive and educational projects. I found your site and was excited to see an article on our prison (United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth).

I would like to set a project for some of the more advanced inmates working on an information technology class (mostly lifers with a history of violent crime) to expose them to real-world, collaborative writing. I feel this might help them to interact more constructively.

I am suggesting to them to read about the site and the rules, and contribute to asrticles that they have experience with. Please let me know if there are any specific rules on this. Thank you, L. John

This sounds like a very exciting plan! I think the closest "rules" we have are at Wikipedia:School and university projects. The discussion on this page, #Good/bad idea to require a class to submit articles as a writing assignment?, has some further pointers about good practice. If you bear in mind that articles should be on "encyclopedic" topics, and written from a neutral point of view, you shouldn't go far wrong. AlexG 20:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ironic: m:wikipedians with criminal records. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, will we be seeing any articles on 'How to make a leathal weapon with a toothbrush and a razor blade'? I'm being silly of course. That would belong in Wikibooks :-P Darksun 22:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, this will blow every school project in the history of the Wikipedia, past or future, straight out of the water. It sounds like an awesome idea. --Ardonik.talk() 23:24, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
This sounds good to me -- so good that I have to wonder if it's for real. L. John, if you happen actually to be the warden at Leavenworth, one change I'd make to your idea is that inmates aren't limited to "articles that they have experience with". Quite a few articles have been written by people who knew nothing about the subject until they started researching it. Another issue to consider is that some Wikipedians have some anger management issues themselves. How will the inmate-editor react when someone writes "How did you get to be such a complete moron?" Such things shouldn't happen but, alas, they do. JamesMLane 00:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How Things Can Be Misconstrued 1.01. James, L.John didn't say he was the warden ):-. No matter. His aim to involve inmates in a collaborative task can only benefit them, and us. You are correct that they should not be limited to only their own experiences, and hey, regarding anger managament, maybe they can drop a few valuable tips to some wikipedians too..Moriori 03:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith. It's an exciting idea IMO. But James makes two very important points. Firstly, encourage the guys to contribute about things that they know about or are prepared to learn about. This could be a very valuable experience. Secondly, the anger management is certainly something to consider. Again, it could be a very valuable experience both for the guys and for the rest of us. I've been a bit disappointed at the trend towards needless agro in some discussions lately, and even more disappointed that this agro draws so little constructive criticism. Sometimes it degenerates to just plain bullying. Perhaps if some of our more volatile contributors knew that some of their fellow Wikipedians were doing time in maximum, but not which ones and what for and when they'd be out, there would be a little cooling off. I think that would be good. And I'm not joking. Andrewa 00:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sort of like Wikipedia's own version of a concealed weapons law?  :-) —Mike 03:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think it is a great idea. I can't see any particular problems. Note that Wikipedia does not just need authors, it also needs editing, formatting, the addition of metric units, maintenance and translating. So there are many ways of making a positive contribution. I think the best way to find if it works well is to try it. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some of my best friends are felons. No joke. I'd be much more worried if we were adding a group of 20 prison guards to the pool than 20 incarcerated felons. Again, no joke. -- Jmabel 21:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I, too, think this is a great idea. My only concerns are:
  1. In a virtual (but very real) sense, you're giving these inmates parole. Online crimes (death threats, libel, ...) are real crimes. OTOH, it is generally harder to commit felonies online, and I can't imagine inmates being quick to violate their virtual paroles. I'm all for parole, but keep a close eye (at least initially, with random spot checks later on), realizing that this is, in fact, a form of parole.
  2. Side issue: should all inmates be forced to identify themselves as Leavenworth inmates, either on their user pages or on m:Wikipedians with criminal records, or should this remain voluntary? This is, of course, a decision to be made by the warden and/or a parole board. (My opinion: make it voluntary, but keep an eye out for abuses.)
  3. A lesser concern: bad apple syndrome. If one inmate wants to ruin it for the rest of his peers, he can act like an ass in general until the IP is hard-banned. I'm assuming, of course, that you'd be going through a router and that inmates would have the opportunity and the inclination to act maliciously. Hopefully I'm wrong on at least one of those counts.
• Benc • 22:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regards online parole, I'm sure the web access of inmates would be strictly monitored, just as with real parole, where a parole officer would frequently check up on the parole-e (or is that just Law & Order? :) ). I strongly think that disclosure of the person's prisoner status should be entirely voluntary. Although we'd like for it not to happen, discrimination exists everywhere. They may not be treated fairly, or be allowed to contribute fully, if they were forced to broadcast they're current living arrangements. Thirdly, regards blocking, prehaps the owner of the IP in question should be known to someone or other, who could make sure it isn't banned. Whoever is monitoring the inmates at the other end would have to be in charge of removing the person's access to WP if they vandalise it, in which case it would be safe to continue to allow the IP access for all the rest. TPK 09:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hm, this is rather outdated up here :) anyway, this was a suggestion from a recent related discussion elsewhere.

  • How about this... the appearance of a new school project will (likely) be obvious to the New Page Patrollers. As soon as they find one, they should notify the rest of the 'Pedia, for instance at the Village Pump. Then, our main concern should be making sure those school people make good edits and articles. I'd suggest,
    1. Creating a centralized talk page for the entire school project, and making sure each project page links there
    2. Contacting the teacher involved, and convince him to have his grades relate to quality of edits
    3. Creating a template 'school project' and add it to each related page
    4. Said template should be similar to the 'welcome newbie' template, and give suggestions on 'proper' editing and formatting - not to mention integration with the rest of WP
    5. Other than this guidance, treat them as normal edits, and mark them for cleanup, merging or VfD if appropriate.
Radiant_* 15:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

A student guide?

Per a recent discussion on wikien-l, I've put together a brief "guide to students", mainoly intended to help them create useful articles - a lot of people who're told to create an article have the problem that, on the spot, they just can't think of anything, so they write about something trivial that gets VfDed, and then people get cranky, and it's messy on all sides, &c &c. Anyway, this aims to help them find a useful topic.

Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students. Thoughts? Shimgray 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's definetly a good start. I hope to be able to help you on this soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Specific course guide/boilerplate

I am finishing work on the Wikipedia:School and university projects/Pitt-Societies-2005. I think parts of it may be useful in future projects. One way or another, any comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

How not to do it

Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#University_of_South_Florida. A perfect example of how not to do a project on Wiki :> Seriously, I am just scared to think what would happen if they went to wiktionary instead of here - would anybody spot them there? Scary thought. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This is appalling. What's his next assignment? To go steal books from the library? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

University of South Florida

Has anyone contacted this professor about the problem? His contact info is here (he's in time zone UTC-4). — Catherine\talk 05:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Should I put this up?

Three students in a software engineering course at my uni will be updating CDVF, fixing bugs, adding features, etc. as their project. It's not directly related to a Wikipedia article, but it is directly related to Wikipedia. Should I put it up on the page? CryptoDerk 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. After all, you are using studends on Wiki, and its an interesting twist to start a project related to the software. Too often software is ignored as something 'obvious', a background that is there, and people forget it is also a project many people have put hours and hours into... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree - any updates to your most excellent tool would be great to know about. Fuzheado | Talk 12:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

University of South Florida (continued)

Moved from the page. Neutralitytalk 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been reported that Alex Duensing, adjunct professor of English at the University of South Florida, has been setting his students homework involving creating made-up words and posting dictionary articles about them to the encyclopaedia to promote their made-up meanings, in violation of the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and no original research official policies.

The homework for the next class is to come up with a word, write the definition, and post it to Wikipedia, a community encyclopedia on the Internet that allows anyone to write an entry on any topic. It's the perfect medium for a reality-questioner like Duensing. Once a word is there and defined, he argues, who can say it's not real? — Linsky, Max (2005-09-07). "For unconventional USF teacher Alex Duensing, life is what you make of it". Weekly Planet. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

WikiLex (AfD discussion), one such identified dictionary article on a made up word, has been listed for deletion.

Kiyama (AfD discussion), another found by searching the Special:Newpages for ". . 131.247", which is the IP range for USF.

Searched Newpages from 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC) back to 03:24, 3 September 2005 (two found, listed above).

-SimonP 00:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Folks--I just became aware of this. I've got an email and phone call into Alex. I suspect he didn't understand how wikipedia works. It is not uncommon for instructors in our program to assign work on wikipedia so I"m hopeful you won't ban USF based on 1 problem....Thanks for your patience. Joe Moxley
  • I just wrote him a polite but stern e-mail, telling him that this is vandalism, that it's in explicit violation of official policy, and that if it continues then all IPs belonging to the University of South Florida will be blocked from editing. DS 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A polite but stern email and letter to the President of the University of South Florida informing him of this behavior might also help, letting him know why his IPs are about to be blocked. I would think that the abuse contact should also be notified. It disturbs me that a professor would be creating a team of vandals. What message is he sending? _WCFrancis 02:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I do appreciate Wikipedia's democratic approach, and I do apologize for not being more familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines--I do not promote vandalism. I am, however, not sorry for creating and promoting 'wikilexing'; I believe that every individual has a right and responsibility to invent the ideas that comprise our shared conceptual sphere.

Granted, the guidelines state Wikipedia is not a place for the publication original thought. Only material that is newsworthy or available in other reputable (usually secondary) sources is appropriate for Wikipedia. Yet, this brings me to a matter I fail to understand. Why do we deny individuals the right to publish their own ideas on this site when a small public relations firm can do so with ease? They can get their information into "reputable sources" with little effort. Should I simply allow good wikilexes to be published on my site or in my newspaper columns before they are posted to Wikipedia? If so, I certainly will. There is little I won't do to assist individuals as they engage in their fundamental right to shape reality.

I realize that this position poses a challenge to the way Wikipedia works, and that many of you may find these efforts disagreeable. However, I do, in the democratic spirit of this site, hope we can work out these matters without threats and in constructive dialectical manner.

After all, I do consider myself a noblist.

Very Many Best,
Alex Duensing

A word, term or idea must not only be printed in a reputable media source outside of wikipedia before it may be added here, but it also must be in common (broadly defined) usage or thought. Wikipedia reflects the general understanding and view of the world. One person's made up term does not fit that definition. Your best option would be to create your own wiki (or use urban dictionary or another service for neologisms) where you can generate such content. Please do not encourage the addition of content merely to prove a point, create new ideas or shape reality. Wikipedia tries to reflect reality not shape it. This link is Broken 00:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
We are glad to see you here. Please consider registering as a first step towards a good dialogue. Now, let me address your specific points. 1) I doubt that any PR firm can do what you suggest, we have experience with removing advertisments, orginal research and such. It doesn't really matter if it is one person, a class or a firm - we have simply too many Wikipedians 'on the lookout' for such problems (I recommend you familiarize yourself with the size of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion project). 2) As for your project: publishing a word on your website does not mean it is relevant to be used in Wiki. Publishing it in an academic journal and getting some newspapers would be better, and if you can make people use it without your prompting, then its even better (as far as the criteria of inlcusion in Wiki go, see Wikipedia:Notability and related pages, and note that majority of your student articles were deleted because they were patent nonsense). Please note that you cannot start with Wiki as the source to 'spread the knowledge'. Not only our various policies are against it, but as you have just seen we have efficient technical means to stop such attempts before they have any visible impact (or damage...). Of course there are always exceptions; we have ourselves invented some words here (to wikify, a wikipedian). But we didn't do it 'for fun' or to 'prove a point', those words were invented because they were needed. New needed words are invented all the time, but the key word here is needed. Anybody can write gibberish on the web and even make it googlable, but I very much doubt it you can make it notable, not without a significant following to prove some point (see nigritude ultramarine for example). If you can create such a significant following for your purposes, that it would make you notable and we would surely allow your word(s) to be added to Wiki. 3) Bottom line is that we deny the individuals the right to publish 'their stuff' here beacouse majority of us decided this is not appopriate for us and that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is no place for orginal research. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address my views. I hope that I can return the favor.
1. Matters posted on Wikipedia need to reflect in common (broadly defined) usage or thought. Is there a yardstick for what constitutes "common usage or thought?" How many people must opt into a concept before it is up to Wikipedia standards?
2. Shaping reality is what I do. I will not encourage individuals to post directly to Wikipedia to this end. However, I will work to get worthy concepts into the news, into "reputable sources" and into "common knowledge." Once an idea makes it into these-- Wikipedia, as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus seems to indicate, is fair game.
3. A small PR firm would be probably not be able to get their material directly onto Wikipedia. Unlike some news and other "reputable" sources, Wikipedia will not publish information from press releases -- at least not until someone else has.
4. I am not doing this "for fun" or "to prove a point". Both I and Nex Real Design (the organization I work for) strongly espouse the rights of individuals to create their own terms and realities.
Hope this answers your concerns.--Lexlander 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The yardstick used varies, as it reflects the Wikipedia community as a whole. Generally, "notability" requires a pretty good showing in terms of Google results. I appreciate your philosophy and intent, I think I do speak for the community when I say that we don't exist to serve that purpose. Geocities has been around for a long time now, so has Blogger; it's possible for anyone to set up a web page with their "own terms and realities" and get an audience for them. Wikipedia thanks you for your respect of our project boundaries. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
To be a little more precise on that remark about notability: obviously, we often turn to Google searches because they are easy. If a wide variety of sites (especially scholarly sites, established news sources, etc.) are using a term in a given way, we tend to assume that it is well-established. Similarly, this is one easy way to establish that a person or institution is "notable". This works well for matters of widespread contemporary concern in the English-speaking (or at least Latin-alphabet) world. It's trickier for something whose main fame was in the distant past, or is in (for example) the Tamil- or Bulgarian-speaking world. And trickier yet for oral cultures that are only moderately documented. Our threshhold for notability varies a lot with subject matter. We would seriously doubt any claim of an important porn star or American politician who didn't pass the "Google test", but one or two good scholarly citations might be enough on a 19th-century Yiddish-language actor or a tribal ritual from deep in the Amazon. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:School_and_university_projects/Archive_1&oldid=1190133445"