Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Schools

message: Whether or not Wikipedia is school-safe, this page does contain technical, factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia is not public domain, for instance, though the text of the meta page at least implies that it is. -- your local Fennec 06:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not accuarate.  I added a bit about how it wasn't "kid safe" but I left all the technical stuff in there.  Perhaps someone will rewrite it here on the talk page (since it's now protected), because things like the implication everything is in the PD really have to go.  fabiform | talk 07:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it here: Wikipedia:Schools FAQ/Draft. - Fennec 13:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now open to editing, and that "Draft" no longer exists. Perhaps some of those changes were fed into this article because I couldn't really see any implication that WP is PD, except one sentence near the bottom, which I've just fixed. -- Harry Wood 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget "safe", the FAQ is still wrong 

message: The FAQ here would have me wondering, if I were a newbie, if there are just controvertial edit wars against vandals.  I have added that blocking is a possibility, if it is obvious vandalism, and not mistakes. I think this is relevant.  Remove if you disagree.martianlostinspace 12:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: The page uses the term "open source" in reference to Wikipedia content; while this is arguably true, a better term is "free content". "Open source" is more appropriately applied to software, and free content is more easily explained in an information context. 81.156.126.223 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Elfalem 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free content", not "open source" 

message: The 2007 Wikipedia Selection link in the question Is it a safe environment for young people? states that its size is of a 15 volume encyclopedia while the Schools FAQ mentions a 40 volume encyclopedia. Which one is right? Elfalem 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 volume or 15 volume? 

message: This section towards the end is interesting : Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ#Beyond information from the encyclopedia, what can students learn from Wikipedia?. It's almost the main point in fact. After all, if teachers are not interested in encouraging pupils to learn by editing, they might as well tell them to go to http://schools-wikipedia.org/ instead (except that there's not such broad subject coverage)
But kids/students can learn a lot by editing. They can learn how to cooperate. How to be polite and professional towards co-workers. How to research a topic. etc (a point which is made quite well there)
Perhaps we can expand this section to give other specific ideas. I saw an article somewhere (maybe not in wikipedia) about how getting involved in Wikipedia:Translations is a good language learning excercise.
-- Harry Wood 10:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learn by Editing 

message: Participation in Wikipedia requires youths to know basic Internet safety practices (which they should already know)
That is wrong, since there is no "test" of any sort. Also, shouldn't adults know "basic Internet safety practices" too?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Part of this FAQ states, 'Wikipedia is a compendium of existing, published knowledge and is only as reliable as the external sources on which it relies. Fortunately, Wikipedia is very regular about citing its sources (far more regular than many other publications). If an article does not provide citations, then it may or may not be reliable and a reader should use their own judgment.'
I think that claims like this over-promote Wikipedia. Wikipedia has sufficiently large problems that such reassuring statements are simply not appropriate. Wikipedia's reliability is limited not only by its external sources, but by the ability of Wikipedia's editors to correctly understand those sources. The statements in the reliability section imply very strongly that if an article does provide citations, then it must be reliable. This is not the case. Sources can be and are misrepresented and misused, and even if an article does provide citations, it may nevertheless be quite unreliable. Provided that nobody objects, I am going to edit this section into something more realistic, and honest about Wikipedia's limitations. Born Gay (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes Needed Here 

message: The "Is Wikipedia child-safe?" section contains this, which confused me: No child should ever assume that if somebody has an account on Wikipedia, then they're safe to meet in person (in fact, it's usually the opposite)
This parenthetical seems to be saying either "If somebody has a Wikipedia account, they're usually not safe to meet in person" or "If somebody doesn't have a Wikipedia account, they usually are safe to meet in person". Neither of these seem logical.  User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that makes no sense. Possibly the parentheses was intended as a joke? Tacyarg (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with you; I've just removed that from the page. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usually the opposite?