On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Ward Cunningham <ward@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. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HOPAU_at_London_Paralympics.pdf and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IPC_NorAmCup.pdf 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?)

Sincerely,
Laura Hale

--
mobile: 0412183663
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com