This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Laptop per Child article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
One Laptop per Child was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 18, 2009. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
|
|||||||
Wouldn't it be a good idea to just import the deployment stats from this page in OLPCs' Wiki? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Bottom half of this article is a jumble with discussion of countries and issues seemingly randomly intermixed.
Scanlyze (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (former OLPC sysadmin)
Why does 2B1 redirect here? K. (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/10/google-microsoft-app-office-windows-malay/2070795/
Should something be said in the intro about this? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
1) Maybe I'm just missing it, but nowhere in the article do I find any clear explanation of what this project is intended to accomplish.
2) Even more pathetic is the (as far as I can tell) complete absence of any mention of the project's effectiveness.
Of course, if you don't say what the project is intended to accomplish, it makes no sense to discuss how effective it is at reaching that goal.
But Canada's eminent psychologist Susan Pinker has written in the New York Times here that the project seems to not just be ineffective at improving students' reading and math scores. Even worse, the project appears to lower them.
If someone is knowledgeable — and preferably unbiased — regarding this project, perhaps they will please add to the article a mention of 1) and if possible 2) above. Thanks.Daqu (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved here from the deployment section of the article -- John of Reading (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to propose that any deployment statistics which are not confirmed by third party source be considered as unreliable. As such, they should removed from this section until proven reliable by other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenason (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Why would you consider deployment numbers unreliable if provided by OLPC, but not if republished by a third party? Have you found some evidence suggesting a reason to doubt that the numbers provided by the organization?
Any news organization, be it The New York Times or Business Wire, will provide numbers as reported by the OLPC organization, unless they mention explicitly the existence of an independent project dedicated to measure such numbers as an external process. Barring such independent studies, I can't see how the media were the data has been provided will affect its reliability, as the source will ultimately be the OLPC project itself. Can you please explain what is the motivation after your proposal? Diego (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, It appears that OLPC and related organization are trying to put the best spin on the situation. To prevent that situation, it is common to use independent and third party numbers to verify market statistics.
The most noticeable occurrence is in Peru. OLPC Frequency states that 900,000 laptops were deployed in Peru. While it is true that Peru ordered 900,000 laptops. Due to numerous logistical, political, and financial issues the number of laptops that were actually used by students was actually in the 10's or low 100's of thousands.
The irony of the situation is that several organizations quote Wikipedia's numbers. Thus implying that those numbers have be properly fact checked. Tenason (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm copying here the references that Tenason removed with this edit because they are no longer used in the article, to preserve them for a possible future usage. Diego (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Archiving additional references no longer used in article cleanup to preserve them for a possible future usage. Tenason (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on One Laptop per Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on One Laptop per Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
This article could use some wikilove. It would benefit from noting who the current officers of the corporation are. When I worked for OLPC(2008-2009) I believe there were two OLPC organizations, one a 501(c)(3) and one a LLC. Are there still two OLPC organizations today?
Parts of the article appear like a promotion for OLPC, having apparently been taken directly from the OLPC website. Scanlyze (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on One Laptop per Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DB:1F15:5700:21DC:28FE:8DF7:DD71 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't "One Laptop per Child (OLPC) was a non-profit" be "One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a non-profit" ? Because the program still exists today Poopykibble (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The depiction of the deployment of the project in Uruguay on this article is, I must say, a bit negative. Let me explain: I am Uruguayan, and I live in Uruguay. For context, I'm 33 years old. The plan rolled out when I was already finishing high school, so I'm not one of those kids, I was around 20 already by then. Way too old. But check this out: I know people who are now around 25 or so, and have heard them (or rather read them, on social media posts, to be specific), talking about how this project ended up changing their lives; plunging them from isolation and poverty right into the computer age. From "obscurity" to the 21st century, so to speak. So, this should probably be updated. To further illustrate this, let me share the following: This plan was, at the time, a display of major risk taking, from a Left-Wing and so-called "Progressive" party, that ruled the country for 15 years here. Those days have now passed. Now a right wing party has took over, and has ruled the country for the last 4 years. However, there is not one politician on the right saying anything negative or even talking about the project anymore because, everyone agrees, and it is understood that, it was very successful. Now, Im not going to even pretend that it was not used "recreationally", as the article suggests. Of course it was. But that was only a part of it. On the whole, it had a huge impact. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)