Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia for Schools

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

Untitled comment

 * 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"
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)

How about an unabridged wikipedia DVD?
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
{| style="width:100%;background:none" ! bgcolor="#abcdef" colspan="2" bgcolor="#abcdef" | Cleanup Co-ordination The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that: For a full list of possible problems see Manual of Style.
 * width=60 bgcolor="#ffdead" |[[Image:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg|100px]]
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
 * the article has multiple overlapping problems.
 * the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |

Discussion

 * }

Some comments from my talk page about the article:

Is a very short 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection page in the 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
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?
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 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

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

Using blogs as sources
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
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 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
I took the notability flag off because usually by the time an article has gone through and AfD (see 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
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: . The 2007 one here: subject index. The 2008/9 one is being worked on at 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"?
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

 * 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 Selection → Wikipedia 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wikipedia for Schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090529012954/http://www.education.vic.gov.au:80/teacher/wiki.htm to http://www.education.vic.gov.au/teacher/wiki.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

use of 2013 wikipedia for schools in 2016
Just a few comments about the W4S that was created by soschildren from a 3rd world perspective;just like to add my view. Soschildren no longer offer a download for the digital encyclopedia & in a personal email to me from one of their spokes person they say at present they are busy with other projects!I guess the initial reaction of a lot of people will be that since the last edition was done in 2013 its now of little use anyway.

I have some involvement on a small scale in Ghana, West Africa with education & i can tell you its still invaluable! This is because good quality educational resources are in scant supply; books are near impossible to update wear out & bulky to move around.The WFS in a nutshell is a collection of htm pages & images that constitute the equivalent of 22 volumes if it was printed. Is it out of date? Well if you find the page say of David Cameron it sates that he is Prime Minister, apart from that i would say its a fairly comprehensive page on him. On other subjects time of a couple of years is not that important - Sulphur was and still is an element listed in the periodic table.

Why the W4S is so valuable is that internet access in 3rd world Countries is still expensive and flaky. With the W4S all you need is an old computer & it gives a wealth of knowledge to those that can make use of it. because the core of it is text presented in the form of htm pages; its not that difficult to update pages.

From my perspective the only  issues with it were that with with very poor bandwidth & electricity shortages its almost impossible to download it uncorrupted in one go in less than 5 or more hours in even Accra!I can get around that problem since i will have it on portable hard-drive & will be in Ghana from the end of August 2016.

The other issue was that with over 6000 pages it was difficult to quickly navigate to the content you wanted. On the subject of searching the content there have been a couple of approaches such as kiwix. However looking into that approach i found it wasn't going to work on Slackware Linux due to missing libraries. i therefore came to the conclusion that it was not universally workable. The approach I made was simply to use a serverless database (Sqlite3) and have key words returning hyperlinks to content. I have it working there are just 4 files that need to be added to the W4S (.htaccess, modified index.htm, sqlite file and a new index.php file. ) You just unpack the W4S in any generic web server (apache, xampp for Windows, xampp for Linux) and add my 4 files and away you go! The zipped package is still under 6gig even with the three quarter of a gig sqlite because i gzipped the htm pages and used .htaccess to render it. In summary people like me still see value in the W4S would still like to see a page on it and are still making use of it. Andybrookestar (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Andybrookestar (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

List of 6000 articles on this CD
The website School-wikipedia.org does not work anymore. Can the list of 6000 articles in a one page alphabetical list be provided. Maybe put it as a subpage of this aritcle. I am also interested in knowing the history of the other versions from 2007, 2008, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs) 09:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a new section, Contents, to the page which has more information about the specific articles used in the project. Hope that's helpful. Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Articlespace redirects to this page
Redirects to this page from the article namespace have been nominated at RfD for deletion or retargetting, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)