Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 March 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 17

Renaming School Years - UK

Somewhere between 1988 and 1993, the English schooling system was renamed from 1st-4th year Juniors and 1st-5th year Seniors to 'Years 1-11'. When did this occur and why?

Many thanks,

Jocundi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocundi (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

According to our sixth form article, the change was made at the start of the 1990-1991 academic year. 'Sixth form' is still used to refer to Years 12 & 13. The terms 'junior' and 'senior' were not used as I recall, but 'primary' and 'secondary' - note that there were also middle schools, with their own numbering systems. Perhaps the existence of middle schools was one of the reasons, a single numbering system allowing all pupils to be compared across the different school models. Mikenorton (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It was brought in as a result of the The Education Reform Act of 1988, which introduced the National Curriculum , SATS and League tables, all of which required a common year numbering system. Mikenorton (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This was only for state schools-public schools mostly stayed with the old 1st-5th form. My first school was numbered by someone floating away with the fairies-our years went 2nd,3rd,the Little Erasmus,Upper 4th,the Great Erasmus,Deps,Grecians... Lemon martini (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But when they're talking to the outside world, they use the more prosaic system: "These day places will be available at:- age 11 (Year 7), age 12 (Year 8)....". Even the school newsletter has "...the IB Deputy Grecians (Yr 12) studying Geography..." Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The first three years of my secondary school went 'Shell', 'Remove' and 'Upper Middle', a system that they still have, also the sixth year are 'Divisions' and the seventh year are 'Sixths'. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A similar change occurred in Australia, and I think it happened before 1988 (but I'm not sure where to look to confirm that). So was the UK following the lead of other nations in making this change? HiLo48 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We may well have borrowed the Australian system; we seem to have a lot of your teachers here. It's reminiscent, though not identical to, the US School Grade system. The US First grade (6 to 7 year-olds) would be Year 2 in the British system. Whether that was in the minds of the civil servants that initiated the scheme, I don't know. Our nearest European neighbours, the French, have a strange system that starts at Grade 7 (10 and 11 year olds) and finishes at Grade 1 (17 and 18 year olds)[1]. As a nation, we tend to studiously avoid imitating the French, just as a matter of principle. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

New South Wales, Australia changed in 1977. Kindergarten (no change), Year 1 to Year 12.
Sleigh (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikigovernment

I am interested in the concept of Wikigovernment and see that there was such a page which was deleted. In fact it appears that there were two such deletions. I would like to see the text that was deleted. How do i find it?Jfagan64 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a question of WP:Help desk, not ref desk. Anyway, you can ask anyone listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to provide a copy of the deleted article. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the OP means the governance of Wikipedia, but rather using wiki-concepts to govern a country. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It was probably deleted because there isn't a well developed concept to write an article about. If you google "wikigoverment" you'll find a few blog posts and there appears to be one book on the subject. That's probably all there is. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on direct democracy. Unlike allegedly "representative democracy", which seems to mainly elect rich, white men in the pockets of major contributors, direct democracy allows everyone to vote on every issue. StuRat (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which results in poor, mob mentality-esque decisions being made in oppression of the minority opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Democracy of all types is tyranny of the majority. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, representative democracy has been very effective at oppression of minorities, historically (and often even disenfranchised majorities, as in South Africa). I don't see any basis for thinking the representatives elected by a mob will be any more fair than the mob itself. Plus you get a layer of corruption tossed in. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"The government anyone can rule"? It's been tried. It's called "anarchy". Doesn't work all that well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Where was anarchy experimented? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously a government "of the people, for the people and by the people" wouldn't be a good idea. Hand over government to whoever can pay the biggest bribes instead... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And come to think of it, where has anarchy been tried, and what grounds do you have for suggesting that it didn't work out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, direct democracy seemed to work in ancient Athens (except that they excluded slaves, etc., from voting). The problem with it in larger nations has been the difficulty in calling a meeting where the entire population attends. However, with the Internet, voting by phone, etc., we could now do that once again, virtually. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cases where it has been tried: List of anarchist communities. Warofdreams talk 13:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the history of "wikigovernment" posted below, that does, indeed, sound like anarchy, where everybody can change the law on their own. Direct democracy, by contrast, still has votes, in order to respect the will of the majority. StuRat (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the article posted by user Atorpey as of 16 March 2007, at 16:34. It should not be recreated as an article as it was deleted via AFD. You may also be interested in Meta:Wikicracy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikigovernment is a model of government based on the open source and "wiki" concepts that have already been brought to the private sector, i.e. Wikipedia. The idea, at its most basic level, is bringing common citizens to the law, and allowing for a transparent law process and maximum public input using the latest technology. The pinnacle of this theory is allowing community members in any given jurisdiction direct access to its laws. Using wiki style editing, people can actually edit their demands into laws. This provides

• Lawmakers with access to the public's opinion
• Citizens easy access to the laws that govern them
• Accountability for lawmakers to the public

History

First Public Implementation of Wikilaws

The first time this theory made it public, outside academia, was at Hampshire College, in Amherst, Massachusetts. The concept of Wikilaws arose as a potential solution to Community Council's, Hampshire College's community governance body, who had in the past struggled with keeping students interested and involved in Hampshire's governing process.

Hampshire College, although at its base is governed by the Hampshire College Constitution, day to day living is governed by Hampshire's student policy book, called Non Satis Non Scire, or NSNS.

Starting in the Fall 2007 semester, NSNS will be made available to the Hampshire Community in a Web 2.0 Wikipedia-style editable form. Students, staff and faculty will be able to log into a webpage and edit parts of NSNS that they think should be changed. The end result will be an edited NSNS that reflects how the community feels about the policies of the college, and provide a forum of discussion for proposed changes. This document will be provided to all of the governing bodies at Hampshire to make sure that the community's opinion is taken into account on every decision made. Currently, updates to NSNS are made by college staff in various offices which some students have criticized for a lack accountability and who in the past have rarely held discussions of proposed changes.

The goal of the project is that the open and purely democratic style of governance will provide a model for other colleges and universities. Possibly, this model could provide inspiration and foundation for governance bodies elsewhere, such as local municipalities.

See also

• eRulemaking

References

External links

Government Technology: Getting Government's Wiki On

Dürre Wand

In your article Dürre Wand there are photos of the following caves.

Cave Bergmilchkammer

Cave Malepartuskluft

Cave Marechlehöhle

Cave Schoberbachklammhöhle

Cave Untere Öhlerhöhle

Can you give me more informations about them? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.204.103 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As your IP geolocates to Vienna, Austria, you may want to look up the article in the German WP. There you will find some references to speleological publications, which you could check in a major library or in the national library on the Josefsplatz. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Horse-drawn cabs in turn-of-the-century New York

In New York in the 1880s through 1900s, were the horse-drawn cabs independently-owned, or were there companies which ran fleets of cabs? 69.62.243.126 (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hansom Cab Company is one company that ran a cab service in Ney York. RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is Straight

For a while I've had a hypothesis that slightly worries me. It goes like this.

Nothing is straight. Proof:

1. All things that are straight must have been copied from the profiles of other things that are straight.
2. This creates a very long chain of straight things going back to ancient times.
3. What, then, was the first straight thing? It must have been created by copying the profile of something in nature.
4. However, nothing in nature is really and truly perfectly straight. Therefore, the first straight thing must have been created from the profile of the ground.
5. But the Earth is a sphere and no part of the ground is straight. Hence that first straight thing and all of its descendants have a slight curvature equivalent to that of the Earth.

Where is the logical fallacy in this? Interchangeable|talk to me 21:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's even worse. Even if there were something in nature that seems to be perfectly straight, consider that space itself is curved. To counteract that, you'd have to have a perspective from somewhere outside the universe, which would be a neat trick if you could manage it. The Ultimate Big Picture. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

All straight lines are reflections of the Platonic ideal of a straight line. If you're a Platonist, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that there are things in nature which are a very good approximation of straight. A cleavage plane in a crystal is one example. An example is the slate used to make a level pool table. The Giant's Causeway is a very large example. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So, when the Police ask me to walk a straight line, and my path is not what they demand, I can argue in court that the line they wanted me to walk wasn't straight anyway, so I simply chose another approximation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The logical fallacy is that as soon as human-kind stuck some stakes in the ground they had a straight line. The Long Man of Wilmington principle is repeated right back to earliest Egyptian land divisions and no doubt long before that. Not so much as nature but of human culture. --Aspro (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, nothing is straight. When you get right down to it, there are microscopic variations due to molecules and atoms moving around and there is empty space between them. So really nothing is solid either. There's empty spaces in all materials. It's similar to measuring a coastline. The article for that escapes me right now but I'm sure someone else can provide a link to what I'm referring to. Dismas|^(talk) 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Benoit Mandelbrot Fractals. That is why I said it is not of nature but human culture.--Aspro (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Coastline paradox HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A better link would be How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension which brings in above said Benoit Mandelbrot . Thus I repeat, straight is a human construct.--Aspro (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's very easy to avoid the curvature of the Earth by Aspro's method, though the curvature of Spacetime is trickier, depending on how you define "straightness". If you define "straight" as the path taken by light, then the fractal nature of many surfaces is not a problem, though the quantum nature of light spoils the perfection of this definition. Dbfirs 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Quantum ?!! Don't tell me … the next thing you're going to try and tell us is that two parallel lines will eventual meet – "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." ;-) Quote from Star Wars opening crawl --Aspro (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I expected a quick and sweet refutation of my hypothesis, which I got (though I would appreciate a little more clarification of Aspro's first comment). I didn't expect that this would get into quantum theory! Interchangeable|talk to me 00:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP doesn’t state exactly what he wants clarification on. So I',m going to guess (please come back if I get it wrong). Early man had only the natural environment without any straight lines. Sooner or later s/he place two stakes into the ground. The very moment s/he placed a third stake in 'line' with the pervious two -they had a straight line. Two stakes that pointed to a sun rise or set, (a third point of reference) would have also been recognised as significant and so on and so on. Man likes order. The ability to define a 'straight line' gives him a sense of being able to 'Lord' over his domain. When it comes to building shelters, it becomes evident though experience, that acknowledging concept of straightness makes for a better shelter than a round house. Experience therefore reinforces the focus on linearity. Animals don't create straightness because it calls for the ability to stand back, reflect and imagine a benefit. An attribute that no animal - other than my cat has been able to muster - when she heads 'straight' to the can-opener. --Aspro (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, s/he had a straight line as soon as they placed two stakes in the ground. A third colinear point is not required to define a line. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst a straight line exits between any two points, it not until a third point is introduced that a line stands out amongst the myriad of other lines. If one considers it as a signal-to-noise ratio of an arrangement of topographical points, then the more points in a line, the great the signal to noise ratio. So at least a third point is necessary to awaken human cognition. After that, intellectual thought can take a step back to consider and 'define' the most basic form of a line. Hence my saying 3 point at the minimum, are necessary. --Aspro (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But haven't you heard, quantum theory affects everything. Lord only knows how the world managed to get on before Einstein. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A Plumb-bob is straight. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The same cannot be said for a plumb-Ellen. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A chalk line is also straight. All you need is a piece of string; you don't need to "copy" anything to get a straight line.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP's hypothesis strikes me as old news. Way back in junior high school, when they were explaining geometry to us, they emphasized that points, lines and planes are concepts rather than "real" things. Not only is there likely nothing that's "perfectly straight" in nature, there's also likely nothing "perfectly circular" or "perfectly spherical", for example. And as we learned in science class, you can't measure things precisely, but only to a reasonable degree of approximation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I read once that if the Earth were the size of a basketball, it would be more perfectly round than a real basketball. Is that true? Interchangeable|talk to me 18:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Smoother than a billiard ball, but not as round: [2] Pfly (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Smoother than a billiard ball even if it were the size of a basketball? JIP | Talk 19:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, or I would assume so. Think of it this way, the Earth's largest imperfection is Mount Everest, at 8848 meters above sea level. The Earth meanwhile has a radius of about 6371 kilometers. With this in mind, if we were to shrink the Earth down to the size of a basketball, about 75 centimeters, Mount Everest would only be about 1 millimeter tall, if my math is right. I'm guessing that a billiard ball would probably have imperfections of at least that much. As a point of interest, I remember hearing a while ago about the most perfectly spherical object ever made by man. While I can't recall the details, I believe it was to be used in a gyroscope in a satellite of some sort that required extreme precision. The sphere was so perfect, that if it was the size of the Earth, it's largest imperfection would only be about a meter tall.

The logical fallacy is in the first statement. "1.All things that are straight must have been copied from the profiles of other things that are straight." It makes the assumption that straight lines need to be copied and can't be created.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)