More EduGeek!!

[Dos_Box]

http://www.edugeekjournal.com/

 

I Google for EduGeek once a month to see how we are doing, and it seems that others have found that if they use our name they get better results because of it I think.

Still, the more the merrier. At lease we are becoming a recognised phrase

[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!)

[Guest]

Here is me thinking this was some edugeek 2.0 news

[webman]

I think now would be a good time to trademark 'EduGeek' and capitalise on its popularity to raise funds for the site! :twisted:

[Geoff]

Perhaps some coalition's would be in order? I'd like to see more state side visitors.

[john]

I like the sound of Tradmarking Edugeek Milk the rivals for all its worth

[alan-d]

I like the sound of Tradmarking Edugeek Milk the rivals for all its worth

 

I refuse to have a trademark stamped on my butt for anyone 8O

[Ashers]

Tradmerk stamped on my butt what?

[grandeped]

Actually, we were sitting around at a conference one day and EduGeek just popped out of Katrina's mouth. In the states, it's a term that's been around informally for at least 10 years, referring to people that are waaayyy too in to EdTech, like Katrina, Darren, and I are. Edugeek.com and edugeek.org didn't really seem to be active sites, but I never thought to Google it. Katrina just sent me this page. Sorry - there was no intentional copying - I thought it was a fairly common term.

 

Our site stats show that we only get about 3 visitors per week from search engines, so I've never really relied very much on Google for visitors. If we're getting better results on Google from it - that's great - but it's sure not getting us any traffic!

 

It's also interesting to note that there is an edugeeks.com for people that are geeky about teaching (they even have a toll free edugeek hotline). So who knows what the correct use of the word is? Technology minded teachers and education based techies tend to be the same people here – many places hire one person to do it all.

 

Also, we actually never were a part of EduBloggers. Not even sure what that is. But it sounds cool.

[Dos_Box]

Its funny, when I thought of the name (all by myself I might add) I did a quick Google, Yahoo and Microsoft search for the term. Google gave me one return from an obscure blog entry. I can't blame people camping on the .Com and .Org now though.

Its still catchier than http://www.treatedlikedirtforapittence.net

[russdev]

Welcome

 

But don't worry just pullng leg on copyright but on serious note might be worth doing some linking up as would like more non-uk members on here.

 

Russell

[djm968]

Search

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You searched for edugeek

 

No page with that title exists.

 

You can create this page or request it.

 

:sign7:

[GrumbleDook]

A basic description of an EduGeek is sompleted.

[_Bat_]

Haha, you could have mentioned this site, Tony . 8O tut tut

[Irazmus]

And it's already been tagged for deletion. You'd almost think someone doesn't like us T_T

[russdev]

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

 

Russ

[Espada]

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.

[Irazmus]

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.

[GrumbleDook]

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.

[localzuk]

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/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28neologisms%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.

[GrumbleDook]

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.

[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?

[webman]

@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.

[localzuk]

@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...

[Stese]

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