On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Ward Cunningham <ward(a)c2.com> wrote:
Me too. Curiosity.
On this list a few months ago I suggested that we should use wiki to study
wiki. I'm developing such a wiki, where one can create and share results
minded from recent dumps. My method excels where curiosity goes beyond what
has been already parsed.
On a sport level, I'd hazard a guess that Australia has more videos in use
on their sporting related pages (or more videos of Australian sport are
used on general pages) because unlike the United States, you cannot
copyright an event. Hence, you can make recordings at professional
sporting matches without as much fear.
Size limitations are a PITA though, which is why I personally haven't
uploaded more. If you have high quality video at 70 to 100 meg, and then
you have metered internet with only 20 gigs a month, how much high quality
video do you want to be uploading? Hence yeah, the importance of meta data.
I tend to use much smaller data sets.
are examples of
contextualizing and understanding where content work around events works in
order to give GLAMs an understanding of the impact of such undertakings,
especially if they can contextualize it against their own internal data.
It often isn't the single data collection that matters but contextualizing
it against others. (How does Wikipedia traffic compare around an event
compared to say a news site? Which one has further audience reach? How
does the total editor contributions compare to the total comments?)