john Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 If were going for where Admins / Mods etc have spoken about edugeek and involved it within presentations, I've done the following: 28/01/2010 - Optimus Education's 5th Annual Schools Financial Management Conference - Funding ICT Improvements - Impact, Outcomes and Sustainability (School Financial Management - London | conferences.teachingexpertise.com) 19/01/2010 - Optimus Education's 6th Annual Schools Financial Management Conference - Delivering ICT Provision at minimum cost to make efficiency savings (School Financial Management - London | conferences.teachingexpertise.com) Both of those have referred heavily to Edugeek and I've spoken about it and said how useful it is and how it can fit into both of those areas. This talk is marketed to Heads, Bursars, Business Managers etc I've also got one for Capita in April but I haven't got the title of that one to hand at present but its along similar areas to those and to similar audiences
GrumbleDook Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Links for LGfL Technicians' Conference 2007 (Tony Sheppard) - Technicians Conference 2007 Open Source School Unconference 09 (Russ Dyas) - Unconference 09 | Open Source Schools Open Source Schools LA Seminar 09 (Tony Sheppard) - Local Authority Seminar 09 | Open Source Schools EMBC IT Conference : Imago, Loughborough University (Various) - Home - Regional Technical Workshop IDG / Microsoft / EduGeek Webinar - Microsoft UK Education - Schools blog - Schools blog Unfortunately some of the pages linking to events are no longer around due to some sites not keeping a full record of events. Ray's blog only goes back so far and other sites which may have details are not 'notable' enough. More to follow though once I sort out a decent way to get links to pages on the National Archives.
plexer Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 I did a talk at an RM conference about fits think that was one of the 2007? Ones Ben
GrumbleDook Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Hmm ... after being told to improve the internal links ... and that has been done ... the pages where full links back to the EG entry have been made are now being reverted to link to the external site ... sometimes you just can't win!
psydii Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 RM BSF Roundtable Discussion 2007 PWC BSF Procurement Review 2008
psydii Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Tony and Edugeek name checked here: http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/public/downloads/bsf_supp.pdf 1
GrumbleDook Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Tony and Edugeek name checked here: http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/public/downloads/bsf_supp.pdf Good spot ... completely forgot about that one. Not long after that I stopped the name check though as there were issues when I started working for the LA and it could have been seen as the official LA view. You can't allow common sense to be an official view unfortunately.
russdev Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 New link that can be used TES - ICT - In a bit of a fix - Features - TES Connect Russ
FN-GM Posted March 16, 2011 Author Posted March 16, 2011 We seem to have a collection of references now. Can someone with good wikipedia know-how list me the ones that wikipedia consider a credible source please? Thanks
jamesb Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 We seem to have a collection of references now. Can someone with good wikipedia know-how list me the ones that wikipedia consider a credible source please? Thanks Anything that references wikipedia? Obviously anyone who doesn't get their info from wikipedia can't be a good source.
localzuk Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 Anything that references wikipedia? Obviously anyone who doesn't get their info from wikipedia can't be a good source. *sigh* I wish people would leave Wikipedia's credibility alone. Internal references in Wikipedia are not allowed. The sources that have been listed so far are good. As I've said before, to be acceptable they must be a) third party b) not blogs c) not opinion pieces d) from national media/organisations. A long list of conferences run by Edugeek, or featuring EduGeek won't be acceptable (they dislike new articles just being lists), however any really prominent events which were advertised as featuring Edugeek.net would be fine. (Edugeek conferences themselves wouldn't be acceptable, as they would be classified as Edugeek referencing itself). Regarding Little-Miss's article, I can see some problems with it at the moment - there are a large number of statements such as "EduGeek spends a great deal of time and money ensuring the ‘community’ aspect of the site is developed", "Its membership increases at a rate of just over 10,000 per year although this currently shows signs of increasing.", " Its members come from all areas of the IT profession.", etc... which are all unsourced and would be classed as either opinion or original research under the rules there. Rules that need to be followed most keenly are: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GrumbleDook Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 Statements on growth of companies can come from company reports but they are usually accepted as more credible if they are reported by other agencies / media groups. Stats should always be verifiable. Conventions are a good to include but need to be well referenced. The example of San Diego Comic-con San Diego Comic-Con International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is what I get pointed to as good. After copyright, the single most important rule could be "Wikipedia must never be a first publisher." With regards to the credibility of Wikipedia ... I tend to tag on that Wikipedia should also never be the second publisher ... but that is a lengthy discussion about research skills and for another day (that drink I owe you looks like it is going to be a long one, Tony)
GrumbleDook Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 It is also worth saying that there are means of getting a company of any sort arranging things which can then go onto Wikipedia ... it is an interesting PR and marketing strategy, is usually frowned upon (if you get caught), yet has been done with PR long before Wikipedia was around. It is one of the reasons why I have a healthy skepticism about marketing and PR ... PR may stand for public relations, but can also stand for propaganda retailing (the selling of propaganda to the masses via news and opinions).
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