Proposing "Paintball for the Olympics" is good for getting people to think about whether it is a sport.

Thats why I think the proposal to get Wikipedia as a World Heritage site is good ... because people may decide that yes, we are creating a world heritage.... and there I believe I would find many here who agree. That feeling is what drives our volunteers and therefore it is a good thing to raise the profile of.

On 24 May 2011 11:15, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:

Longer shot than that - it's more like getting Counter-Strike onto Olympics. All current heritage site listings are currently tied to a geographical location; trying to get Wikipedia on will mean creating an entirely new category listing. Add to that Wikipedia's orders of magnitude younger than the heritage sites currently on the list.

On 24 May 2011 11:01, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:

...

On 24/05/2011 09:19, Chris Keating wrote:

...

Wikimedia DE is running a campaign to have Wikipedia recognised as a UNESCO world heritage site.

I just wondered what peoples' views here on this were?

Long shot, like trying to get paintball included in the Olympics. Not a bad idea to be talking to UNESCO, but who should be talking to whom about what? Some of the sister projects are more about "heritage", in fact.

Charles

---

Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

---

Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On 25/05/2011 09:48, Gordon Joly wrote:

On 24/05/2011 11:01, Charles Matthews wrote:

...

Long shot, like trying to get paintball included in the Olympics. Not a bad idea to be talking to UNESCO, but who should be talking to whom about what? Some of the sister projects are more about "heritage", in fact

Like Commons?

You could say even more like Wikisource, which has the potential to post the classic literature of all cultures, and make it freely available.

But partly this is a way of thinking about what we do. Since I currently work mostly on historical biography, I'm conscious of bringing old biographical text together with images, making available material about figures who (for example) might be of interest to local historians. The point would be that our "mission" is actually to be systematic in doing that, while local or localised historians (family historians, religious historians concentrating on one church, historians of one institution or company, military historians with a narrow focus, garden historians, transport historians, cricket historians of the 18th century, etc., all well supported areas) impose some sort of cut-off in their interests. So from there we have to argue that Wikimedia projects are inclusive (by topic and language), well resourced, responsible (backed up and with transparent histories), and accessible to a significant fraction of the world's population,

Charles