It looks very likely that the National Maritime Museum are going to release a significant amount if information gleaned from their archives under CC-BY-SA so we can make use of it. This would include information on the service history of some 20,000-odd Royal Navy warships. More information on-wiki here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM Regards, Chris(The Land)
Brilliant news - not only does it tell us about the ships but also about the many notable brits on the ships
Well done in anticipation
On 26 February 2011 09:27, Chris Keating fightingforfairness@hotmail.comwrote:
It looks very likely that the National Maritime Museum are going to release a significant amount if information gleaned from their archives under CC-BY-SA so we can make use of it.
This would include information on the service history of some 20,000-odd Royal Navy warships.
More information on-wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM
Regards,
Chris (The Land)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Amazing news. I'm also amused by how pedantic we are in discussing whether it's a reliable source. Deryck
On 26 February 2011 11:43, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Brilliant news - not only does it tell us about the ships but also about the many notable brits on the ships
Well done in anticipation
On 26 February 2011 09:27, Chris Keating fightingforfairness@hotmail.comwrote:
It looks very likely that the National Maritime Museum are going to release a significant amount if information gleaned from their archives under CC-BY-SA so we can make use of it.
This would include information on the service history of some 20,000-odd Royal Navy warships.
More information on-wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM
Regards,
Chris (The Land)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Roger Bamkin (aka Victuallers)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
We have a London meetup in a fortnight, is it possible we could discuss this there?
WSC
On 26 February 2011 11:43, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Brilliant news - not only does it tell us about the ships but also about the many notable brits on the ships
Well done in anticipation
On 26 February 2011 09:27, Chris Keating fightingforfairness@hotmail.com wrote:
It looks very likely that the National Maritime Museum are going to release a significant amount if information gleaned from their archives under CC-BY-SA so we can make use of it. This would include information on the service history of some 20,000-odd Royal Navy warships. More information on-wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM Regards, Chris (The Land)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Roger Bamkin (aka Victuallers)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
WSC - Unfortunately I can't make the meetup. Happy to answer questions etc either over email or on-wiki. Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National Maritime Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's unusual to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to establish a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it later. Chris
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:55:14 +0000 From: werespielchequers@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] National Maritime Museum collaboration
We have a London meetup in a fortnight, is it possible we could discuss this there?
WSC
On 26 February 2011 11:43, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Brilliant news - not only does it tell us about the ships but also about the many notable brits on the ships
Well done in anticipation
On 26 February 2011 09:27, Chris Keating fightingforfairness@hotmail.com wrote:
It looks very likely that the National Maritime Museum are going to release a significant amount if information gleaned from their archives under CC-BY-SA so we can make use of it. This would include information on the service history of some 20,000-odd Royal Navy warships. More information on-wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM Regards, Chris (The Land)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Roger Bamkin (aka Victuallers)
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
Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National Maritime Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's unusual to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to establish a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it later.
I have been working with Royal Navy history for the past year or so and am
working under one of NAM Rodger's students right now in writing an undergraduate honors thesis. As it goes for organizations which publish or support Naval History, the NMM is considered one of the more important authorities along with the Naval Records Society which sponsor or publish sets of sources. It clearly is reliable and I would be surprised if someone questioned it.
That being said, as Historian, I would find the donation much more useful if it were sponsored on another website (a closed wiki vetted by the NMM?), that way historians can use it without having to cite one of the Wikimedia projects. History, in particular, is a mildly backward field when it comes to digital integration into scholarship. And it is certainly one of the fields I don't think we will see lots of citations to Wikipedia in anytime soon. Naval History is one of the worst subfields for digital integration as well (most of the journals published in the field are not available digitally yet). Any sources published digitally outside of a pay wall would be infinitely useful for scholarship. That would also be useful for vetting of Wikipedia facts, instead of the content being inserted once, it could be refered to for verifiability for however long it is needed.
Alex Stinson User:Sadads
Perhaps it would be appropriate to load their material to WikiSource rather than directly to Wikipedia http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page
Then we can cite it in Wikipedia, or if the license is compatible and they have an article where we don't we could even import bits into Wikipedia.
Some historians might raise an eyebrow if the NMM releases its information on one of our sister projects, but once they get used to the idea I would hope they'd be happy to cite it.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 February 2011 19:25, Alex Stinson stinsoad@dukes.jmu.edu wrote:
Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National Maritime Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's unusual to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to establish a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it later.
I have been working with Royal Navy history for the past year or so and am working under one of NAM Rodger's students right now in writing an undergraduate honors thesis. As it goes for organizations which publish or support Naval History, the NMM is considered one of the more important authorities along with the Naval Records Society which sponsor or publish sets of sources. It clearly is reliable and I would be surprised if someone questioned it. That being said, as Historian, I would find the donation much more useful if it were sponsored on another website (a closed wiki vetted by the NMM?), that way historians can use it without having to cite one of the Wikimedia projects. History, in particular, is a mildly backward field when it comes to digital integration into scholarship. And it is certainly one of the fields I don't think we will see lots of citations to Wikipedia in anytime soon. Naval History is one of the worst subfields for digital integration as well (most of the journals published in the field are not available digitally yet). Any sources published digitally outside of a pay wall would be infinitely useful for scholarship. That would also be useful for vetting of Wikipedia facts, instead of the content being inserted once, it could be refered to for verifiability for however long it is needed. Alex Stinson User:Sadads
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Alex - I will certainly make that point to them. The dataset *might* yet end up on the NMM's own website, though there are apparently some obstacles to doing so. WSC - I'd thought about Wikisource. I'm not particularly familiar with that project - their inclusion guidelines say "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text. Such information has not been previously published, is often user-compiled and unverified, and does not fit the goals of Wikisource." The interesting bit is probably the interpretation of "complete source text", as we're definitely not talking about user-compiled info, and hopefully it does very much meet the goals of Wikisource. Is there anyone here who is involved with Wikisource who can offer an opinion? Chris
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:47:45 +0000 From: werespielchequers@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] National Maritime Museum collaboration
Perhaps it would be appropriate to load their material to WikiSource rather than directly to Wikipedia http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page
Then we can cite it in Wikipedia, or if the license is compatible and they have an article where we don't we could even import bits into Wikipedia.
Some historians might raise an eyebrow if the NMM releases its information on one of our sister projects, but once they get used to the idea I would hope they'd be happy to cite it.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 February 2011 19:25, Alex Stinson stinsoad@dukes.jmu.edu wrote:
Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National Maritime Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's unusual to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to establish a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it later.
I have been working with Royal Navy history for the past year or so and am working under one of NAM Rodger's students right now in writing an undergraduate honors thesis. As it goes for organizations which publish or support Naval History, the NMM is considered one of the more important authorities along with the Naval Records Society which sponsor or publish sets of sources. It clearly is reliable and I would be surprised if someone questioned it. That being said, as Historian, I would find the donation much more useful if it were sponsored on another website (a closed wiki vetted by the NMM?), that way historians can use it without having to cite one of the Wikimedia projects. History, in particular, is a mildly backward field when it comes to digital integration into scholarship. And it is certainly one of the fields I don't think we will see lots of citations to Wikipedia in anytime soon. Naval History is one of the worst subfields for digital integration as well (most of the journals published in the field are not available digitally yet). Any sources published digitally outside of a pay wall would be infinitely useful for scholarship. That would also be useful for vetting of Wikipedia facts, instead of the content being inserted once, it could be refered to for verifiability for however long it is needed. Alex Stinson User:Sadads
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
Well RS is my personal "axe to grind" :) and I think this is perfectly acceptable, and indeed an inviolate, reliable source.
With such matters we have to consider content, author, publisher. Content is fine, just factual secondary level information based on historical research. Author is fine too, NMM is clearly an excellent academic source in the field of naval history. Indeed, you'd struggle to find better I think. Publisher, in this case is no real issue; NMM are de-facto publishers whether it goes on their site, Wikisource or as a data dump on Commons.
So I doubt you will see any resistance to it as a RS :)
Tom / ErrantX
On 26 February 2011 20:52, Chris Keating fightingforfairness@hotmail.comwrote:
Alex - I will certainly make that point to them. The dataset *might* yet end up on the NMM's own website, though there are apparently some obstacles to doing so.
WSC - I'd thought about Wikisource. I'm not particularly familiar with that project - their inclusion guidelines say "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text. Such information has not been previously published, is often user-compiled and unverified, and does not fit the goals of Wikisource." The interesting bit is probably the interpretation of "complete source text", as we're definitely not talking about user-compiled info, and hopefully it does very much meet the goals of Wikisource.
Is there anyone here who is involved with Wikisource who can offer an opinion?
Chris
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:47:45 +0000
From: werespielchequers@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] National Maritime Museum collaboration
Perhaps it would be appropriate to load their material to WikiSource rather than directly to Wikipedia http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page
Then we can cite it in Wikipedia, or if the license is compatible and they have an article where we don't we could even import bits into Wikipedia.
Some historians might raise an eyebrow if the NMM releases its information on one of our sister projects, but once they get used to the idea I would hope they'd be happy to cite it.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 February 2011 19:25, Alex Stinson stinsoad@dukes.jmu.edu wrote:
Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National
Maritime
Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's
unusual
to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to
establish
a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it later.
I have been working with Royal Navy history for the past year or so and
am
working under one of NAM Rodger's students right now in writing an undergraduate honors thesis. As it goes for organizations which publish
or
support Naval History, the NMM is considered one of the more important authorities along with the Naval Records Society which sponsor or
publish
sets of sources. It clearly is reliable and I would be surprised if
someone
questioned it. That being said, as Historian, I would find the donation much more
useful if
it were sponsored on another website (a closed wiki vetted by the
NMM?),
that way historians can use it without having to cite one of the
Wikimedia
projects. History, in particular, is a mildly backward field when it
comes
to digital integration into scholarship. And it is certainly one of the fields I don't think we will see lots of citations to Wikipedia in
anytime
soon. Naval History is one of the worst subfields
for digital integration as
well (most of the journals published in the field are not available digitally yet). Any sources published digitally outside of a pay wall
would
be infinitely useful for scholarship. That would also be useful for
vetting
of Wikipedia facts, instead of the content being inserted once, it
could be
refered to for verifiability for however long it is needed. Alex Stinson User:Sadads
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
From the project page I get the impression that NMM is publishing the data
online, at the same time as making it available under CC, so there isn't much problem with historian having to cite Wikimedia projects?
Correct me if I'm wrong. On Feb 26, 2011 9:00 PM, "Thomas Morton" morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Well RS is my personal "axe to grind" :) and I think this is perfectly acceptable, and indeed an inviolate, reliable source.
With such matters we have to consider content, author, publisher. Content
is
fine, just factual secondary level information based on historical
research.
Author is fine too, NMM is clearly an excellent academic source in the
field
of naval history. Indeed, you'd struggle to find better I think.
Publisher,
in this case is no real issue; NMM are de-facto publishers whether it goes on their site, Wikisource or as a data dump on Commons.
So I doubt you will see any resistance to it as a RS :)
Tom / ErrantX
On 26 February 2011 20:52, Chris Keating <fightingforfairness@hotmail.com wrote:
Alex - I will certainly make that point to them. The dataset *might* yet end up on the NMM's own website, though there are apparently some
obstacles
to doing so.
WSC - I'd thought about Wikisource. I'm not particularly familiar with
that
project - their inclusion guidelines say "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source
text.
Such information has not been previously published, is often
user-compiled
and unverified, and does not fit the goals of Wikisource." The
interesting
bit is probably the interpretation of "complete source text", as we're definitely not talking about user-compiled info, and hopefully it does
very
much meet the goals of Wikisource.
Is there anyone here who is involved with Wikisource who can offer an opinion?
Chris
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:47:45 +0000
From: werespielchequers@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] National Maritime Museum collaboration
Perhaps it would be appropriate to load their material to WikiSource rather than directly to Wikipedia http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page
Then we can cite it in Wikipedia, or if the license is compatible and they have an article where we don't we could even import bits into Wikipedia.
Some historians might raise an eyebrow if the NMM releases its information on one of our sister projects, but once they get used to the idea I would hope they'd be happy to cite it.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 February 2011 19:25, Alex Stinson stinsoad@dukes.jmu.edu wrote:
Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National
Maritime
Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's
unusual
to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to
establish
a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it
later.
I have been working with Royal Navy history for the past year or so
and
am
working under one of NAM Rodger's students right now in writing an undergraduate honors thesis. As it goes for organizations which
publish
or
support Naval History, the NMM is considered one of the more
important
authorities along with the Naval Records Society which sponsor or
publish
sets of sources. It clearly is reliable and I would be surprised if
someone
questioned it. That being said, as Historian, I would find the donation much more
useful if
it were sponsored on another website (a closed wiki vetted by the
NMM?),
that way historians can use it without having to cite one of the
Wikimedia
projects. History, in particular, is a mildly backward field when it
comes
to digital integration into scholarship. And it is certainly one of
the
fields I don't think we will see lots of citations to Wikipedia in
anytime
soon. Naval History is one of the worst subfields
for digital integration as
well (most of the journals published in the field are not available digitally yet). Any sources published digitally outside of a pay wall
would
be infinitely useful for scholarship. That would also be useful for
vetting
of Wikipedia facts, instead of the content being inserted once, it
could be
refered to for verifiability for however long it is needed. Alex Stinson User:Sadads
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org