Group items tagged

This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

General notability guideline Shortcut: WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] "Sources,"[3] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5] "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

• Interestingly, teachers in countries like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands etc. do not belong to the (very) intensive ICT users in class. Only around 10% or less of the teachers in these countries use computers in more than 50% of their lessons. One can only speculate about the reasons for this. It seems that in these countries the use of computers and the internet has become the norm for most of the teachers and pupils in all aspects of life and that there no longer is the need to put a special emphasis on this in the teaching processes at school. However, most European countries still seem to be in the phase of increasing the frequency and intensity of ICT usage for education in class”.

• “Students who use computers least frequently at home also performed below average in PISA 2003. However, students using computers most frequently at school do not in all countries perform better than others.

the highest performances in PISA 2003 were seen among those students with a medium level of computer use rather than among those using computers the most”. [p.52] “