2009/7/19 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>om>:
All comments gratefully received!
I'll comment as I read - please excuse me not using a sandwich technique!
Slide 2: Where does the 900,000 contributors come from? Not all use
pseudonyms, "registered users" would be better. The WMF prefers not to
be thought of as a publisher for legal reasons - I would go for
"hosted".
Slide 4: I think statements are better than questions for this kind of
thing. As far as I know, you aren't leading a discussion session. The
slides should summarise what you are saying.
Slide 5: There is some non-free content in Wikipedia. While fair use
images should be reusable as part of the articles in which they
appear, they may not be reusable in their own right.
Slide 6: An example with references would be better. (It looks like
you've removed the references because there were too many - find an
example with a more reasonable number so you can include them.)
Slide 7: I'd rather WMUK didn't draw conclusions about how
child-friendly Wikipedia is. Present the facts and let people make up
their own minds. Personally, I think it is perfectly child-friendly,
since I don't see any harm coming from exposure to sex and violence.
Slide 9: Bear in mind that the Nature study is several years old now.
Wikipedia has changed a lot since then.
Slide 10: Typo: an->a. I wouldn't recommend COIs - drop the school bit.
Slide 12: WikiSpecies is hardly one of our major projects. I would
replace it with Wiktionary (I would also spell "Wiktionary"
correction! ;)).
Ok, those are my negative comments. Positive comment (half a sandwich,
at least!): I think you've chosen the correct material. You are
prioritising the right stuff. Just make sure you time yourself going
through it (out loud) to make sure you can fit it all in. Good luck!