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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com
> > To: wikimediauk-l(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org
> > >
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > > WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> >
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>