john Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I did get it DB, work went a bit mad, sorry! Will be playing with it this next week! I'll see where my mate is in his travels I think as I've seen him on FB more that he maybe in the UK again! 1
GrumbleDook Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 What seems to be happening in all honesty is that it is hard for us to do a simple entry without it being classed by tehm as 'self publicity, which in fact, is what every article in Wikipedia really is. The 2 lines showing what they were previously removed for I did argue with a few folk that it could have stood, but the fact that the reference materials (BETT Publications from IDG) where hosted on the same site was a problem and there were no sources which were considered authoritative. They would not take the SSAT site, TES Forums, personal blogs, etc ... yet once you have an article up with one authoritative you can then put further references in from other locations. Considering the amount of rubbish and poorly referenced materials that are on Wikipedia (yay ... let's go stick a reference in but no one will check whether that reference has the correct info anyway) it is not hard to see why Wikipedia gets a bad name as a decent reference site. I'm half tempted to see if we can get one authoritative reference and from a note news outlet ... the same way that many others have. Company x pays a freelance writer to prepare an article, it gets sold to a newspaper and there you go.
RabbieBurns Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 TheRegister have written about Edugeek before.. Fasthosts brings down Edugeek - and leaves it there ? The Register Im sure Ive read other articles where edugeek has been mentioned too ?
Ric_ Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 @RabbieBurns: Don't forget Sophos apologises for going legal on school techies ? The Register too
russdev Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 TES paper direct - Is the future of the dinner queue at their fingertips? - Article - TES Connect Also.. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6042430 Russ
localzuk Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) They're both good sources, but you need another source too - ie. a non-register source, and it can't be blogs either (unless that blog itself is notable and from a famous person who would justify their own wiki article). Or at least those were the rules last time I looked there. EDIT: The Tes article, plus the register articles should provide enough evidence of notability for an article. EDIT2: I've messaged the admin who deleted the article pointing out that he didn't give the user time to create the article, with sources. Edited February 19, 2011 by localzuk
russdev Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Also sec-ed SecEd | Features | A short-sighted approach?
russdev Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 These might not count Registration now open for BETT 2011 | News | IT Training Magazine | Training | Qualifications, Training, Careers | BCS - The Chartered Institute for IT and http://www.naace.co.uk/1059
RabbieBurns Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Is Microsoft planning to upgrade ICT in our schools for free? - Spannerman's Edublog
SYNACK Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Learn 4 Life » Interview with Chris Byers - founder of EduGeek
localzuk Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Neither of them would be acceptable - as neither of those sites are themselves notable (one being a blog for an non-notable person, the other being a generic blog).
elsiegee40 Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 There are various mentions in the Guardian. They're a bit brief. Do they count? Q&A | Resource | The Guardian News in brief | Education | The Guardian Don't miss out - Freebies at Bett 2010 | Resource | guardian.co.uk
localzuk Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 There are various mentions in the Guardian. They're a bit brief. Do they count? Q&A | Resource | The Guardian News in brief | Education | The Guardian Don't miss out - Freebies at Bett 2010 | Resource | guardian.co.uk They all look valuable - first one would be a source showing they provide Bett support, the second for the general purpose of the site, and the third as a second source for their Bett support.
localzuk Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 I've posted these on the deleting admin's page - so that's 9 different independant and non-blog sources for the site. Hopefully they'll restore it! 1
elsiegee40 Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 How about the USA Scholastic blog? The Royal Treatment: EduGeek Invades US Education IT
Ric_ Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 We have also had a couple of mentions on the notable Microsoft UK Schools blog - Search - MSDN Blogs
localzuk Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Right, he's now restored it. Get editing peeps!
localzuk Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 I've added a few bits - but they need a lot of work, and more needs to be added too.
FN-GM Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 Please can an admin e-mail: [email protected] to give permission to use the logo. If not it will be removed by the 23rd Feb. Thanks
john Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Before we all go charging in can I point out the points raised a few posts ago, LittleMiss has been working on this behind the scenes with Dos_Box and has been since BETT, and this is quite a detailed draft of the article and I know Dos_box has sent her some more updates for it, its a good detailed draft and covers many key points and integrates sources etc... so no need to be rushing ahead here. More haste less speed otherwise it'll end up being rejected again
localzuk Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Before we all go charging in can I point out the points raised a few posts ago, LittleMiss has been working on this behind the scenes with Dos_Box and has been since BETT, and this is quite a detailed draft of the article and I know Dos_box has sent her some more updates for it, its a good detailed draft and covers many key points and integrates sources etc... so no need to be rushing ahead here. More haste less speed otherwise it'll end up being rejected again It needs to go up again asap. It is better to have a holder page with some detail on it, than no page at all. The whole point of wikipedia is that it is a collaborative effort...
localzuk Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 wow...feel i wasted a lot of time... No you didn't, anything you've done can be merged in! That's the point of a wiki!
localzuk Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Please can an admin e-mail: [email protected] to give permission to use the logo. If not it will be removed by the 23rd Feb. Thanks Shouldn't be needed, as logos are covered by the non-free logo tag, so long as some rationale is supplied (ie. it is the site's logo).
localzuk Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 And there we go, nominated for deletion already. The admins there really annoy me sometimes.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now