Talk:One Laptop per Child/Archive 6

Opera: yes or no?
100 dollar laptop says that there will be a special version of Opera installed, and a little further it reads that Opera was declined. Maybe a little note at one of both places mentioning the other (either "a special open source version" or "opera was declined but an open source version accepted") would help clarify things. If this is correct at all.. --bb 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Opera will definitely run on the laptop but is not in any of the builds. I'll try to update the article because it is not free software or open source. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am curious about the decision to remove rather than clean up the Opera reference: (a) Opera does run on the machine; (b) it is documented at least here: wiki.laptop.org/go/Opera ; and, perhaps more important, it is an example of one of the seemingly more controversial aspects of the project, which is whether or not non-FOSS software should be included--the same topic as the Apple/Jobs reference. Maybe the whole section could be restructured, but no reference seems a bit extreme. --Walter.bender 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad. I removed the mention of Opera because I couldn't find any mention of it on Opera's own web site, and the reference in the article made it sound like vapourware. My mistake: it should be noted in the article again. —Pengo 06:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused by names- 1B2 ?
I'm trying to learn more about the "$100 Laptop", promoted by Mr. Negraponte. Inevitably, numerous names have been attached to it over the course of it's development. At the OLPC site, the term "1B2" crops up fairly regularly... so could that name have at least a mention/ explanation on the Wikipedia page, please? In particular, is this just a name for "it", maybe current, maybe superceded, or is it some sub-type of the "$100 laptop"? And where did "1B2" come from, please?

82.2.140.233 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was "2B1"&mdash;not 1B2&mdash;that was used as the working name for the laptop at one point. The name 2B1 came from an MIT Media Lab program from the mid-90s. It means "to be one". Other internal names included the "Children's Machine" taken from a book of that title by Seymour Papert. --Walter.bender 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the 'Software' section?
This stood out to me: the section title says: 'The projected software as of November 2006[30] are:' before following up with what seems like some very not-NPOV griping about how Puppy Linux wasn't chosen. Puppy Linux isn't included, so why is it in a section for what the projected software will be, if not to make the point that someone feels hard done-by? I've left it as it stands for now but it could certainly use a rewrite, or removal. Maybe a new section for what software was considered and on what grounds? Stonejag 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because for some reason Puppy Linux attracts its own class of advocates. I've never heard a peep about this supposed "much discussion", so one assumes it happened on somebody's message board. I've removed it. Chris Cunningham 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Criticisms section
There was something about this section taht came off as unuaually biased to me. And possibly racist. I'm not sure if it's just me, but it was almost as if whoever added that little tidbit had that mindset themselves, as if it was a voice of opinion in and of itself. I hesitate to remove it though, in case there's something out there that would support it. Someone want to review it for killing? Daisenji (Time? too lazy... not logged in ><)


 * Here's the section:


 * Another criticism is that developed countries are giving undeveloped countries' children laptops before they give their own children laptops. It is claimed that many children in the United States and other developed countries would benefit much more from the use of a laptop than children in undeveloped countries. In fact, some states in the U.S. (e.g. Maine and Georgia) are providing commercial laptops to pupils  and the OLPC FAQ responds to the question: "Will the laptop be available for relatively developed nations?" by stating "We are exploring the possibility of developing a commercial version and we are in discussions with representatives from these nations about distribution of the non-commercial version. However, our priority is to make the laptop available first where there is the greatest need."


 * I've removed rather than tagging it because I tend to agree that it's it's POV as well and the first place I've heard this criticism is here. If someone wants to clean this up, reference the criticism itself (and not just a response that seems largely orthoganol) and reinsert it into the normal criticism section, that would be fine. mako (talk•contribs) 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

$10 Computer
It seems that the Gov of India is serious about a $10 computer after all: (See http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/TOIonline/India/HRD_hopes_to_make_10_laptops_a_reality/articleshow/1999849.cms). It may have been premature to remove that discussion thread from the article. --Walter.bender 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent news
FYI - http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/05/03/pc-diplomacy/ Douglas A. Whitfield 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/14/uruguay-youngsters-receive-batch-of-olpc-xos/ Uruguay receives the fist shipment of OLPC

Fedora or Red Hat?
According to Engadget and several other sources (including Red Hat Linux) the OLPC will be running RED HAT not Fedora. The OLPC version of Red Hat is available for download.


 * http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/10/olpcs-linux-based-operating-system-available-for-download/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.126.236.103 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * We are running a subset of Fedora Core 7 as documented on the OLPC website and wiki. --Walter.bender 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Intel story
I would like to offer to write a short description of the Intel idea to compete with OLPC program to the history section of the article. My contribution is based on yesterday's story at http://www.profy.com/2007/05/21/intel-olpc/ and the discussion of this story on Netscape at http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/05/22/poor-children-as-an-emerging-market-for-intel/. --S Gladkova 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an article Classmate PC, perhaps you can make additions here -- Q Chris 08:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a sentence about today's press conference, in which Intel and the OLPC project announced they would work together. Jwigton 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Second hand computer vs. $100 laptop
Second hand computer is not mentioned in the main article. But I think second hand computer has some key advantages as long as there is power supply. It might be much cheaper and it is a REAL computer. As a Chinese, my first experience on computer is from a second hand 286 PC. And I know that a lot of rural schools in China do buy second hand PCs in cities. It may be a more practical solution. Sinolonghai 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay Good for you go for it, but what has that got to do with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.234.82 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it is related to the OLPC projects. There are already some second hand computer redistribuation organisations expressing their criticism of OLPC. For examples:


 * $100 laptop project is 'fundamentally flawed'
 * War of words between aid organization and OLPC erupts
 * Sinolonghai 15:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the previous post. This is a good point and I would support an article giving an overview of different second-hand computing projects (e.g., Freegeek) linked from this artible but don't think it really should go in this article itself. --mako (talk•contribs) 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, this is relevant in the criticism of the project, as a viable alternative. 132.203.212.220


 * Sorry 132.203.212.220, but by disagree do you mean disagreeing with 82.36.234.82, or with Sinolonghai? It was just a little confusing to me, however, I agree that this should be added into the article somehow. Penman 1701 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Penman, re-read it.  Zslevi 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sinolonghai that in the criticism section, second-hand computers should be noted. I don't care whether we have a distinct article about second-hand computer projects. Zslevi 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly do second hand computers have to do with the laptop? Firstly this discussion page is where you figure out ways to improve the main article, secondly that criticism section is almost a third the size of the article, so please make sure your second hand PC contributions are all sourced. It really is beginning to look like a good idea for this article to be split into two separate ones covering both the project and the laptop. --Basique 23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've supported a split like this for quite a long time but, at least early on, seemed to be in a minority. Perhaps things have changed. I can support/help in effort to do this. —m a k o ๛  12:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This originally was two articles, and was combined because nobody could come up with a real rationale for having two articles. The current rationale seems to be that "the laptop article" can somehow avoid attracting all the criticism and OR rambling about potential impact and so on. I don't see that this is likely if the split is between "XO-1" and "One Laptop Per Child" as it was last time.
 * An actual new article for low-cost computing or the like would be a good idea. Chris Cunningham 12:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article split discussion
Please discuss and vote on the splitting of this article into XO-1 (laptop) and OLPC Project here. --Basique 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Split - I vote yes to a split, the article has grown enough that a split is now necessary. We can use the Mozilla Foundation and Classmate PC articles as templates. --Basique 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not split. There's no obvious rationale here, and the separate articles were previously merged for this reason. We don't do things by voting, we do them by reaching consensus. A different split which specifically addresses other computing solutions for developing nations is a much better idea. Chris Cunningham 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Split - There's an obvious breakpoint between the OLPC project and similar unaffiliated goals and projects of providing wide PC and net availability, and the XO laptop hardware itself. Georgewilliamherbert 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Split - The organization (with its directors, participants, goals, etc) are related to but distinct from the XO-1. OLPC also has a school server project and is planning future laptops. The split is inevitable and since the article seems unruly to some people, it seems like a reasonable time to split it. That said, I agree with Chris above -- a more general article on projects attempting to provide PC and net available like OLPC and Classmate and others would be absolutely welcome. —m a k o ๛  14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not split, I agree with Benjamin above that a split is inevitable. But until other laptops/projects are announced by OLPC there is no need to split right now. —Pengo 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Update - User:Waycool27 just split the article. I reverted the split, although I support it, because I wasn't sure that there was consensus on this page yet. This is an actively edited page and others should really consider weighing on this before we go forward one way or another. Also, the split itself was slightly botched since it was moved into One Laptop per Child Foundation (a related but distinct organization to OLPC). If/when the split happens, folks should look at reinstating User:Waycool27's work at sorting things out. —m a k o ๛  15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks Benjamin for undoing my changes. I didn't realise there was a discussion going on - this is a good lesson for me to check discussion pages before making any major changes in the future. On my part, I just happened to read the Intel announcement and was looking for relevant material on Wikipedia. It seemed like a good idea to split the organization content from the project to keep it scalable - i.e. there might be a future XO-2 and so on. I'm also slightly confused about OLPC as there seems to be 2 distinct sites at laptop.org and laptopfoundation.org, but they both seem to be the same to me. Sorry for jumping the gun here, didn't mean to cause trouble. Let me know if I can be future help. Waycool27 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Split - By my actions, it would have been obvious anyway :) Waycool27 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - A split would help clean up the flow of the page; in general it seems like good style for product articles to be distinct from articles about the organizations that created them. In this case, Sugar (GUI) is another example of work supported by OLPC which is not limited to a specific machine; discussions about one-laptop-per-child projects have been ongoing, even within this organization, since before the XO was designed...  It might be interesting to add detail about other designs over the past few years, and design considerations involved, with a separate article about the XO because it has real specs & is in production.  +sj + 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks like the consensus is for a split. --Basique 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * split at OLPC XO or OLPC XO-1. The parentheses for disambiguation is a last resort. Look at car names for example; we use Volkswagen Passat instead of Passat (car). 24.110.144.116 07:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Split into the organization One Laptop Per Child and their first product, the OLPC XO laptop. Each article would have a different focus. The organization article would contain history, philosophy (constructivist learning), people involved, countries involved, and product summaries. The laptop article would contain technical details about the particular hardware, such as the innovative screen, low power system, and software. It would also allow a clean split of criticism against the OLPC philosophy vs. OLPC products. A split also paves the way for other articles on planned OLPC products, such as the OLPC XS server, peripherals, etc. --IanOsgood 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the deletionists are already trying to kill OLPC XS, despite it not being problematic (needing disambiguation for example) or obviously pointless. Maybe you'd like to argue to keep that article and/or add the damn references that somebody demands. AlbertCahalan 06:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Basique. The consensus here seems to be for s split. Anyone here should feel empowered to do it. It's on my todo list so if nobody else gets around to it, I will eventually. —m <font color="#600099">a <font color="#2D0399">k <font color="#362365">o <font color="#000000">๛  14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mako, I figure you would be the best one to take care of it. --Basique 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh heck, I'll just be WP:BOLD and split it myself--TexasDex 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Split - What happens when they make a second generation, the XO-2? Are we going to have that in the article as well?  I also notice that there are plenty of articles on individual laptops, and individual foundations.  Would we merge all of the laptop models Toshiba makes into the manufacturer's article?  I don't think so. --TexasDex 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done! This has been long overdue in my opinion. --IanOsgood 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

access to knowledge
I guess it has been a while since I have read the article, but it seems to me that the opening sentence is now far off the mark. Simply providing children with "access to knowledge" is not what the OLPC program is about and is not the design goal of the laptop itself. We are trying to give the children opportunities for learning, which suggests that they have access to knowledge (what we refer to as tools for exploration, e.g., a web browser, multimedia player, ebook reader, etc.), tools for putting that knowledge to use (what we refer to as tools of expression, e.g., a word processor, multimedia recoding and editing, drawing, composing, etc.), and tools for engaging in a critical dialog with others about what they have "accessed" and expressed (what we refer to as tools of communication and collaboration, e.g., chat, video conferencing, collaborative work spaces, sharing objects over the mesh, etc.). Certainly the laptop will be used for access to knowledge and access to instructional materials, but the design and implementation are more ambitious: we are targeting construction of knowledge on the theory that much learning happens through doing, debugging, and debate. --Walter.bender 11:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Clockwork computer" redirect
Why does "clockwork computer" redirect here? There is no mention of the XO-1 running on clockwork. --Warp L. Obscura 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why it should. Someone should propose the redirect for deletion. I doubt it will be controversial. —<font color="#C40099">m <font color="#600099">a <font color="#2D0399">k <font color="#362365">o <font color="#000000">๛  14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have boldly  changed  the  redirect  for Clockwork computer to Difference engine. -- Writtenonsand 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow ! that was a bold leap ! The Difference engine "was powered by cranking a handle" - clockwork implies (to me) storing the energy in a spring or weights. I don't think the Difference engine did ! Google "define:clockwork" only returns the 'gear-train' definition from Wikipedia - other sources suggest stored energy is important, too!
 * XO-1_(laptop) says "A built-in hand-crank generator ... was part of the original design, but Negroponte stated at a 2006 LinuxWorld talk that it was ... optionally available as a hand- or foot-operated generator built into a separate power unit". Revert ? Better to create a 'Clockwork Computer' page and link to The shipping units will come with a pedal-powered recharger. ? Or just delete ? Personally, I suspect that solar power will be the best option for many places - then 3W bicycle dynamos charging the batteries if needed at night. Even Freeplay, the 'clockwork radio' people, seem to be developing a hand-cranked generator, rather than clockwork spring energy storage.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

chief designer
"Yves Behar is the chief designer of the present X0 built."


 * Yves is the lead industrial designer. Others, including teams from Quanta and OLPC were the leads on the electronics design. Quanta, OLPC, and Gecko collaborated on the mechanicals. --Walter.bender 17:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

talk page problems
Hello all,

these talk pages have issues!
 * XO-1 (laptop) redirects to One Laptop per Child
 * but Talk:One_Laptop_per_Child redirects to Talk:XO-1 (laptop)
 * Talk:One Laptop Per Child (a miscapitalization) redirects to Talk:XO-1 (laptop)/Archive 3
 * while One Laptop Per Child simply redirects to One Laptop per Child.

I know this is a controversial topic, naming-wise, so I'm not going to attempt to fix :) But we should try to get it straightened out. -- phoebe/ (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed.

Cite for touchpad as “mousepad”?
"Beneath the keyboard is a large area that resembles a very wide touchpad that Jepsen referred to as the “mousepad”." -- Apparently not cited in this article, and I haven't been able to find a source for this online. Since the term "mousepad" already has a different common meaning, if the term is being used this way re the OLPC, I'd like to include a brief note on this fact at mousepad. Can anyone clarify/cite?-- Writtenonsand 12:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OLPC uses the term touchpad consistently in its descriptions of the hardware. Not sure where the mousepad reference comes from, but it is an anomaly. --Walter.bender (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mebibytes vs megabytes etc, in this article
This article seems to mix and match with binary and decimal prefixes, e.g. using Megabytes at times but Mebibytes later. A standard use for articles like this should be agreed upon and then implemented. Although Kibibyte/mebibyte are correct by IEC standards, they are almost unheard of units outside of Wikipedia and very technical articles. Megabyte and kilobyte are generally accepted as standards in most places, so should they be used here? Either way, consistency is required.

Personally, good old-fashioned Megabytes would be my suggestion.

Thekoyaanisqatsi 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I should rephrase this: Would anyone object if i simplified this article to using decimal prefixes throughout? I'll give it a week or so to get some replies before I do anything. Thekoyaanisqatsi 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I support using megabytes and kilobytes. (I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "using decimal prefixes".) --Gronky 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean :) Thekoyaanisqatsi 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since fixed. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Negorponte Introduces the Give one Get one program.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14845430 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.236.103 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
Why was the criticism section duplicated on the X-O laptop page? In fact a lot of this article was duplicated in what was once a leaner more directed page. --Basique 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the past the OLPC article and the XO-1 laptop article were apparently one in the same. After the split, it seems that some editors may not be clear on the reasons and discussion that went into the split. The XO-1 article should be about the hardware and this OLPC article should be about the organization. --Mwarren us (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Minimum Donation $200?
As far as I can tell, both the G1G1 program and the "main" OLPC websites only allow donations of at least the price of a laptop. Do they not want smaller donations? Should this be in the article? are the only donation pages I could find. I guess my $25 will go somewhere else. Gront (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/index.php
 * http://laptopfoundation.org/en/participate/givemany.shtml
 * Spoke too soon. Have to look under "participate" rather than "donate".

There goes my $25 :)  Gront (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://laptopfoundation.org/participate/

Intel
This ref is currently used as a source but I've noticed the article doesn't really cover it's main point, that Intel and Microsoft have tried to kill the OLPC project. This needs to be here somewhere particularly since the article mentions that many of the initial orders never came through but doesn't mention why (because many people are looking at Intel Classmate PC instead) Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "why" cited above is either hearsay or speculation. If it is going to be incorporated into the article, it should be better grounded. --Walter.bender (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look through the various News Picks threads in the last few Groklaw stories (as of Jan. 12, 2008), as well as the News Picks links themselves from Groklaw. There are specific instances where Intel representatives used Intel's position as members of the OLPC board to give increased weight to their criticisms of the OLPC.  Someone please add such references.  An industry expert (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What do others think - should Intel's association with OLPC and then resignation be left both in the History section and in the Opening section, or should it be in just one place. The article is already long and since Intel has left OLPC the History reference may be enough.Mwarren us (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wayan Vota
We might need an article on this guy once people sort out his real affiliations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBurdges (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was created.--Kozuch (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Language of operating system
Can the language or the operating system be changed from english to spanish on an already purchased machine and if so how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalazar1763 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions about the laptop itself should be posed on the OLPC wiki: http://wiki.laptop.org/ --IanOsgood (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This wiki.laptop.org page explains how to change to Spanish. Mwarren us (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair market value?
The fair market value of the XO laptop is placed at $199 by the OLPC Foundation. How is "fair market value" defined? Apart from being a very subjective term, that would presuppose a fair market, which is not in sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.51.93 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Has it ever been for anyone? deepsack (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This has apparently since been removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Split section - Criticism
The section is too long for the article. It is also important enough to be split into a new page called Criticism of One Laptop per Child.--Kozuch (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Performed the split as there were no comments.--Kozuch (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the material from Criticism of One Laptop per Child and interspersed in appropriate sections for an NPOV presentation of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you failed to reach consensus about merging - thus reverted merge from the Criticism of One Laptop per Child side. As an administrator you should obey at least some Wikipedia rules in my opinion before doing major edits.--Kozuch (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is still a valid way to be bold. Rather than resort to a process discussion, check my version of the merged articles and discuss its merits or lack thereof. I believe that it is NPOV, not "poisoning" and presents all significant viewpoints on the subject. If we have no agreement, I shall ask for additional input from other editors via WP:3O or WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Windows
Should the fat they are thinking of switching to windows be mentioned? At the moment its just a verifiable rummor, but if the change of CEO, is anything to go by it is going to be researched soon. At what point should it be added to the article? now? research? when they announce it? when they ship it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.192.193 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

something should be added about windows. they just struck a deal with microsoft to include windows on olpc for $3 extra, dual boot? $7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.101.26 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something should be mentioned about this, it is not clear that mirosoft intends to steal Linux's oppurtunity to help out children in need. Predator106 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.19.134 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Critisism
What about a section that responds to the criticism levelled against this machine?

For example, a response to the "Good use of money" section by Nicholas Negroponte is: “Nobody I know would say, ‘By the way, let’s hold off on education.’ Education happens to be a solution to all of those same problems.”

--70.77.37.70 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful with this kind of stuff to avoid it going back and forth and ending no where. Personally I wouldn't add that even if Negroponte said it because it doesn't really answer the criticism. I don't know if anyone has said we shouldn't educate people. Some people have said, building schools, improving conditions so people can actually attend schools etc might be more important. I'm not saying I agree with this view simply pointing out that no one is saying we shouldn't educate people AFAIK just that this may not be the most effective way increase education Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Possible vandalism from Mwarren us and  Gesslein

he/she removed and manipulated article words, trying to hide negative matters. it is not good to hide truth. <font face="Kristen ITC" span class="Blogsdsig" style="padding: 0.2em; border: 1px solid #6AF; background-color: #CEF; color: #000;"> Blogsd <span class="blogsdtalk" style="padding: 0.2em; border: 1px solid #FA6; border-left: none; background-color: #FEC; color: #000;"> Contact  --Blogsd ! 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The changes were made to clarify facts, however, I would welcome discussion of specific edits and how they improve/detract from the article. Mwarren us (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your change were made to Justify Hafe Baked Truth & Remove Nagetive Facts, however,You r welcome to discussion of specific edits & how they improve/ detract from the article :) :) <font face="Kristen ITC" span class="Blogsdsig" style="padding: 0.2em; border: 1px solid #6AF; background-color: #CEF; color: #000;"> Blogsd  <span class="blogsdtalk" style="padding: 0.2em; border: 1px solid #FA6; border-left: none; background-color: #FEC; color: #000;"> Contact  --Blogsd ! 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Starting with your first edit comment that says "Mission: deliberately created Vandalism to hide OLPC's Contradicting agenda, why remove ref . its not recognize as a SPAM as per Wikipedia:SPAM": the missing Information Week reference was an accidental edit and not "vandalism"; nonetheless, thank you for replacing the ref. Let me explain how it happened: proof reading the Mission and top sections showed that both recitations of the principles were very nearly identical and so I cut the duplicate recitation from the top section in favor of the more clearly formatted Mission recitation. I simply did not notice that Mission lacked the Information Week reference.  Fortunately for readers, at least four additional references discuss OLPC's uptake of XP. There was no attempt to hide OLPC's compromised prinicple 5; the wording change in your edit actually weakens the wording; Pre-edit the text states that principle 5 "is now contradicted" while post-edit it only says "may now be contradicted".  Mwarren us (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Combine "Controversy about Misson" and "Other Viewpoints" into one "Criticisms" section?
What is your opinion about combining the sections Controversy about Misson and Other Viewpoints sections into a single "Criticisms" section? Wikipedia readers often skip to the "Criticisms" section in articles to find the active areas of discussion. --Mwarren us (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What do folks think about combining the "Controversy about Misson" and "Other Viewpoints" sections into one "Criticisms" section. Would this improve the article or not?  Thanks --Mwarren us (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)