Thanks for the comments, Mav.
In my conception (hardly original or final), Wikimemory would focus on common, significant, historical *experiences* rather than the individuals. The top level categories in Wikimemory would, then, be historical experiences: "The Vietnam War," "The Cultural Revolution," "Encounters with Jimmy Carter," "The Red Sox winning the World Series," "The Beatles Final Concert," "Hurricane Katrina" and so on. Pretty much anything with a witness, a place, a date and a bit of significance to "your community" (very broadly defined) would fit.
Both Wikipeople and (to a lesser extent) Wikimemorial seem focused on individuals, and that seems to me to be a separate, important kind of information. Does that make sense?
Linking the experiences recorded in Wikimemory with entries on the witnesses in Wikipeople is a great idea, though.
Best, Marshall
Marshall Poe, Ph.D. The Atlantic Monthly 600 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20037 202-266-6511 mpoe@theatlantic.com
Just to say that I was thinking about something similar. As well as I support this idea.
This would solve te problem of sep11.wikipedia, too.
On 9/16/05, Poe, Marshall MPoe@theatlantic.com wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Mav.
In my conception (hardly original or final), Wikimemory would focus on common, significant, historical *experiences* rather than the individuals. The top level categories in Wikimemory would, then, be historical experiences: "The Vietnam War," "The Cultural Revolution," "Encounters with Jimmy Carter," "The Red Sox winning the World Series," "The Beatles Final Concert," "Hurricane Katrina" and so on. Pretty much anything with a witness, a place, a date and a bit of significance to "your community" (very broadly defined) would fit.
Both Wikipeople and (to a lesser extent) Wikimemorial seem focused on individuals, and that seems to me to be a separate, important kind of information. Does that make sense?
Linking the experiences recorded in Wikimemory with entries on the witnesses in Wikipeople is a great idea, though.
Best, Marshall
Marshall Poe, Ph.D. The Atlantic Monthly 600 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20037 202-266-6511 mpoe@theatlantic.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- "Poe, Marshall" MPoe@theatlantic.com wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Mav.
In my conception (hardly original or final), Wikimemory would focus on common, significant, historical *experiences* rather than the individuals. The top level categories in Wikimemory would, then, be historical experiences: "The Vietnam War," "The Cultural Revolution," "Encounters with Jimmy Carter," "The Red Sox winning the World Series," "The Beatles Final Concert," "Hurricane Katrina" and so on. Pretty much anything with a witness, a place, a date and a bit of significance to "your community" (very broadly defined) would fit.
Both Wikipeople and (to a lesser extent) Wikimemorial seem focused on individuals, and that seems to me to be a separate, important kind of information. Does that make sense?
Well the idea is to also focus on events where lots of people died. Not unlike what the Sep11wiki was supposed to be but not focused on any one event.
That would cover at least part of what you´d like to do with Wikimemory. I´m just not sure if there would be enough overlap to merge the proposals or not.
-- mav
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Well the idea is to also focus on events where lots of people died. Not unlike what the Sep11wiki was supposed to be but not focused on any one event.
Those pages were created on www.wikipedia.com as part of Wikipedia.
sep11.wikipedia.org was created long after the fact to archive the various September 11 experience- or memorial-type pages from English Wikipedia before they finally got deleted there, as a lot of people felt it was inappropriate or disrespectful to just delete them permanently without saving them (which a lot of other people wanted to do and had started actively trying to do).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I still think these kinds of projects don't really belong to Wikimedia. Why not Wikicities?
Well... Why not ? Are you people OK with testimonies like "I was there when US army shooted on Hotel Palestine in Bagdad" or "I was in the jails of Abu Graib" ?
Traroth
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com a écrit :
Well the idea is to also focus on events where lots of people died. Not unlike what the Sep11wiki was supposed to be but not focused on any one event.
That would cover at least part of what you´d like to do with Wikimemory. I´m just not sure if there would be enough overlap to merge the proposals or not.
-- mav
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Traroth wrote:
Well... Why not ? Are you people OK with testimonies like "I was there when US army shooted on Hotel Palestine in Bagdad" or "I was in the jails of Abu Graib" ?
I think this sort of thing would be very problematic. When it comes to contentious topics, like Israel-Palestine, people have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing to completely fabricate eye-witness accounts to make one or the other side look bad.
Published eye-witness accounts can also be fabricated, of course, but have the benefit that since they're in the public sphere of published work, the more questionable oens have often attracted published refutations. Similarly, books on controversial subjects are often reviewed in the 'book review' sections of journals. A purported eyewitness account added directly to a wiki doesn't benefit from any of that sort of peer review.
-Mark
Yep. The inverifiability of the contributed stuff removes almost all of the value of this idea. Sad.
Traroth
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org a écrit :
Traroth wrote:
Well... Why not ? Are you people OK with
testimonies
like "I was there when US army shooted on Hotel Palestine in Bagdad" or "I was in the jails of Abu Graib" ?
I think this sort of thing would be very problematic. When it comes to contentious topics, like Israel-Palestine, people have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing to completely fabricate eye-witness accounts to make one or the other side look bad.
Published eye-witness accounts can also be fabricated, of course, but have the benefit that since they're in the public sphere of published work, the more questionable oens have often attracted published refutations. Similarly, books on controversial subjects are often reviewed in the 'book review' sections of journals. A purported eyewitness account added directly to a wiki doesn't benefit from any of that sort of peer review.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org