John Simkin Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 It is really worth exploring the Schools Wikipedia website. Unlike, the original Wikipedia, the content has been reviewed and edited by the academic community. For example, take a look at the following: First World War http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/w/World_War_I.htm Second World War http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/w/World_War_II.htm Adolf Hitler http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/a/Adolf_Hitler.htm Joseph Stalin http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/j/Joseph_Stalin.htm Lenin http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/v/Vladimir_Lenin.htm Leon Trotsky http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/l/Leon_Trotsky.htm Winston Churchill http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/w/Winston_Churchill.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tribe Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 John, I checked their website and can't find any reference to academic review. As far as I can work out, it's been checked by volunteers fro SOS Children who have deleted anything "adult", which isn't quite the same thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigdem Göle Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I haven't seen any academic review reference, either. And some parts of the World War I section and the related links on the page contain a biased attitude towards certain incidents that took place during the period. Some of the information given there is based on memoirs instead of actual documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Cates Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 You are right that there is no seperate academic review. The volunteers (who were mainly students or staff at Cambridge University) did two things: they marked passages for deletion where they were vandalised or obviously biased or obviously adult in nature and they choose which version in the article version history should be used as a base for the Schools Wikipedia. The review of Wikipedia by Nature a couple of years ago (which said Wikipedia had a lower error rate than Britannica) found that in almost all cases there were previous versions of the article without the errors, so looking through for the best version by the most credible editor was considered worthwhile. In general on Wikipedia itself main stream articles like WW1 attract a considerable debate and I am not sure that any account can be free of "biased attitude". As John has said, Wikipedia being facts based is a disadvantage in history. However I have just looked back through WW1[/] and cannot see anything obviously wrong with it. There was a lot of debate on some elements of it but it is hard to avoid that. I haven't seen any academic review reference, either.And some parts of the World War I section and the related links on the page contain a biased attitude towards certain incidents that took place during the period. Some of the information given there is based on memoirs instead of actual documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now