Hi Folks:
I'm reposting this because I messed up the formatting when I first posted it (making it very hard to read--sorry).
Best, MP
First, thanks to everyone for the input. As a newbie, I really appreciate it.
Let me address some of the good points you made.
1. How does Wikimemory fit Wikimedias mission?
As I understand it, Wikimedias mission is to present the sum of
human knowledge (and, more generally, content) to all of humanity,
free, by means of wikis. The data that will be gathered on Wikimemory
is part of human knowledge--its the part we use to understand the past.
Empirically speaking, historical artifacts such as memoirs *are* the past, or
at least the only evidence we have of it. You cant see the past, or go visit;
you can only look at whats survived until the present. Moreover, if we dont
gather all these memories, they will be lost (they are recorded presently in
peoples heads and nowhere else). For the first time in history we
have the ability to easily record and store the memories of a huge section
of humanity. If we do it, the future will be richer for it (e.g., bad actors wont
be able to deny their bad deedsits be on the record for everyone to see).
2. How is Wikimemoir different from Wikimemorial
In terms of purpose, the two are different: Wikimemorial memorializes tragedies,
while Wikimemoir records significant firsthand accounts of important events.
In terms of data-type, Wikimemorys content is similar to *part* of the content
on Wikimemorial (or 911wiki), namely, memoirs. There will be no memorials
on Wikimemory, at least as I conceive it. The only metadata will be commentary
on the primary sources (see below).
3. Hows it different from Wikipeople?
Apart from the commentaries on the memoirs,
Wikimemory is all data and no metadata; Wikipeople
is all metadata (biographies). Put another way, Wikimemory
is a primary source; Wikipeople is a secondary source.
Both are very valuable, and neither can really exist without the other.
4. Why a Wiki (or, To edit or not to edit)?
To me, this is the most interesting question of all because it points up a conflict
between two principles. On the one hand, we want to be open and allow everyone
to edit all content. On the other hand, we want to gather and disseminate the sum
of human knowledge to everyone, free. In the case of Wikimemory (and several other
] wikis), these principles run up against one another. Let me try to explain.
It seems to me that there are two kinds of wikis, differentiated by the kind of data
they gather. What might be called scientific wikis record the present state of *human knowledge*,
that is, metadata or secondary sources. I have in mind Wikipedia, Wikispecies, etc.
In contrast, what might be called documentary wikis gather, preserve and disseminate
*artifacts*, that is, data or primary sources. I have in mind 911Wiki, Wikisource, Wikiquote,
Wikicommons, and Wikimemory.
Now heres the interesting part: the scientific wikis can be expected to become more valuable
in an opensource environment as they are edited, but the documentary wikis can be expected
to become less valuable as they are edited. For example, the Wikipedia *entry* on the Magna Carta
will improve as we learn more about the document and its context, but the Wikisource *edition* of
the Magna Carta will only become less valuable as it is edited further away from its original, canonical
state (the words as they were written in 1215). Or to take a hypothetical example from Wikimemory,
the Wikipedia *entry* on Abu Graib Prison will get better as historians uncover more about what happened
there, but a Wikimemory *memoir* by one of the prisoners will only lose value if it is changed from its
original disposition (that is, if it is vandalized).
And heres where we run into a contradiction of principles or aims. If we stick to the open-source
principle, then we wont be able to present historical artifacts, because they may be inaccurate
reflections of the originals (due to vandalism). This contradicts the all-human-knowledge principle.
If, in contrast, we prioritize the all-human-knowledge principle, then well probably be forced to
make finished entries on documentary wikis read-only. This violates the open-source principle.
Which is the superior principle? Id say its the all-human-knowledge principle. Theres a lot to be
gained by relaxing our stand on open-source here. For this reason I propose that discuss making
the finished content on Wikimemory read-only in some or most cases. Moreover, we can still be true
to our open-source principles by allowing users edit metadata (explanatory information about the
memoirs) to the site. To return to our example, a well-annotated Magna Carta is much easier to
understand than a Magna Carta in isolation. And such annotations would be (in the sense meant
before) scientific, they would improve as we learned more.
All the Best, Marshall
