+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28
General Chat Thread, More EduGeek!! in General; How about someone editing it for us as admins we can;t under the rules but members can. Russ...
  1. #16

    russdev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leicestershire
    Posts
    6,985
    Thank Post
    735
    Thanked 559 Times in 374 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    206

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    How about someone editing it for us as admins we can;t under the rules but members can.

    Russ

  2. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Bucks, UK
    Posts
    120
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
    Matt & Katrina have been around for some time IIRC ... on EduBloggers to start with.

    EduGeeks in the states seems to mean technology minded teachers ... in the UK it is education based techies ...

    I wonder who is right ;-) (and no prizes for getting the right answer!)
    Some of us are both. I have to say my heart is in the techie camp though. Anyone got any good jobs going in the South East.

  3. #18
    Irazmus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Suffolk
    Posts
    320
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    If I read the rules right (Not a given), the OP can tag it with {{hangon}} and expand it to make it fit within Wikipedia's rules, they just can't remove the {{db|[[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary.]]}} tag.

  4. #19

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    10,074
    Thank Post
    1,384
    Thanked 1,889 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    614

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    I have put a hangon in place and explained that I am looking at how the term is used in other communities and the history of the term.

  5. #20

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,529
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 2,648 Times in 2,049 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    925

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    As a regular editor of WP I'd say that it hasn't got much chance of survival (I'm staying out of the issue as it is a conflict of interest):

    1. It is a neologism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...8neologisms%29)
    2. It was created by someone with a conflict of interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI)
    3. There aren't any sources that meet the reliable source/verifiability criteria. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V)

    The article has had the speedy delete tag removed and a prod tag added instead. Unless someone removes it and places a reason why they did on the talk page, it will likely be deleted in the next couple of days. If someone removes the prod tag, it will likely go to Articles for Deletion where a more formal discussion will take place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AFD

    Does the term have any non-blog sources? Magazines using it etc...? If so, I'd add those asap.

  6. #21

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    10,074
    Thank Post
    1,384
    Thanked 1,889 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    614

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    The problem with neologisms is proof of usage. When you work in a particular field you get them all the time and sometimes you have to accept that a word is not common usage.

    Mags ... other than the infamous letter most of the other mentions are web-based, whether as adverts for the site, events or members.

    The lack of case studies is an issue here. The other people that may feel it appropriate to add or support entries with information may be companies themselves and also have a conflict of interest.

    I did not feel happy putting edugeek.net on as an article as that would be a clear conflict, but I am interested in the origins of the phrase edugeek. Perhaps once I can find more evidence it should be applied as a subtype on the article for Geek.

    If it goes, it goes ... at least we can revisit it in later years ... once we have taken over the world.

  7. #22

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    10,074
    Thank Post
    1,384
    Thanked 1,889 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    614

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    @localzuk
    I am pretty sure that it has been raised before but what happens about entries who can only be evidenced by electronic information. Does this mean that communities that exist purely online, communicate online and are only ever referenced though blogs, editorial online articles or individual sites should not be entered onto WP?

  8. #23

    webman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    8,422
    Thank Post
    645
    Thanked 967 Times in 667 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    328

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
    @localzuk
    I am pretty sure that it has been raised before but what happens about entries who can only be evidenced by electronic information. Does this mean that communities that exist purely online, communicate online and are only ever referenced though blogs, editorial online articles or individual sites should not be entered onto WP?
    No, the Wikipedia entry certainly exists.

  9. #24

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,529
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 2,648 Times in 2,049 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    925

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
    @localzuk
    I am pretty sure that it has been raised before but what happens about entries who can only be evidenced by electronic information. Does this mean that communities that exist purely online, communicate online and are only ever referenced though blogs, editorial online articles or individual sites should not be entered onto WP?
    In a way, yes. If a site is notable enough to go on Wikipedia then there are normally articles from reliable sources. I don't think I've come across a site which has only got unreliable sources as its references.

    Wikipedia has an entry because it has been reported in mainstream media thousands of times...

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Robert Mays School, Hampshire
    Posts
    100
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    I've removed the flag for Deletion as the reason is unfounded... it's not a dictionary article...

  11. #26

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    10,074
    Thank Post
    1,384
    Thanked 1,889 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    614

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    But it is a neologism, the problem is providing evidence for common use that is not purely community or blog-based, something I don't think we can do at the moment.

    Edugeek or EduGeek is a colloquial term that is only used in a few places at present including here, a small journal in the US, a personal blog in hte US and a few phrases elswhere.

    There is a better chance of edugeek.net being put on as a community or company, and after Bett 2008 there will be sufficient evidence for this too. All we can do is prodcue an entry in our own wiki that can be ported across to WP when it is sufficiently robust.

    I have seen some naff entries get left for a long time on there, but others, like this one, go very quickly ... all depends on how busy people are I suppose.

  12. #27

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,529
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 2,648 Times in 2,049 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    925

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    Well it has been wiped out.

    I'd suggest we go with GrumbleDook's idea and wait till there are some third party references - else the term will end up being deleted and salted so an article can't be created without trouble in the future.

  13. #28

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    10,074
    Thank Post
    1,384
    Thanked 1,889 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    614

    Re: More EduGeek!!

    Getting an entry all ready to go also gets around the fact that sometimes you have to be *really* quick to get a pretty fully fledged entry in. Thanks for your advice, localzuk.



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. EduGeek IRC?
    By Samson in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 14th June 2007, 10:58 AM
  2. EduGeek needs you!
    By GrumbleDook in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22nd November 2006, 06:19 PM
  3. Edugeek map
    By indie in forum Comments and Suggestions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27th January 2006, 12:59 PM
  4. SST & Edugeek
    By russdev in forum General Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 4th November 2005, 07:27 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •