Placeopedia is an online application which integrates Google Maps images and Wikipedia encyclopedia articles.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeopedia andhttp://www.placeopedia.com/.
The Board are currently working on a logo licensing contract which would permit such sites to use the Wikipedia logo.
A new mailing list for Placeopedia has recently been created at http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps and they would welcome input from Wikipedians on various aspects of the site.
For example, some issues already raised are whether links to Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a template for this on the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia) but so far any links have only been added manually.
Another issue is whether users of Placepedia should be able to add categories to Wikipedia directly from Placeopedia.
If you have an interest in maps, please join the mailing list to help answer these Wikipedia-related questions. http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps
Angela.
A link to the placeopedia [PP] entry might not be useful on average. On the other hand, a geotag, formatted according to Wikipedia geotagging-style (once that is settled on), could be added automatically. Then an eager geotagging Wikipedian could quickly find the right geo-coordinates via PP, add a PP entry with the appropriate title, and thereby update the WP article.
On 10/17/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
The Board are currently working on a logo licensing contract which would permit such sites to use the Wikipedia logo.
Huzzah for that.
++sj
On 10/17/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
A link to the placeopedia [PP] entry might not be useful on average. On the other hand, a geotag, formatted according to Wikipedia geotagging-style (once that is settled on), could be added automatically. Then an eager geotagging Wikipedian could quickly find the right geo-coordinates via PP, add a PP entry with the appropriate title, and thereby update the WP article.
I second this. The usefulness of such a tag going forward can not be overstated.
Well. Maybe it could be a little overstated... but not much!
Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation? Something that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a different amount from its cost 10 years from now. Is there some auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present cost, such as:
Original Cost: $50 USD Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD
Something like that.
James
James R. Johnson wrote:
Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation? Something that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a different amount from its cost 10 years from now. Is there some auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present cost, such as:
Original Cost: $50 USD Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD
Something like that.
James
Hoi, Would that not be a rather depressing function?? Then again, for people with another currency the same applies; you would like to know how much it is in the current currency .. the Euro in my case. Thanks, Gerard
On 18/10/05, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation? Something that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a different amount from its cost 10 years from now. Is there some auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present cost, such as:
Original Cost: $50 USD Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD
The problem is that this is an art more than a science. The "1865" conversion rate would work okay for seeing how much a cup of coffee cost then - but it'd give an impressively misleading equivalent value for the Alaska Purchase.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 18/10/05, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Not really related to the Placeopedia, but is there some kind of function we can write wherein the dollar amount adjusts based on inflation? Something that cost $50 in 1790 would cost several times that amount today, but a different amount from its cost 10 years from now. Is there some auto-function we could do that would display the original cost, and present cost, such as:
Original Cost: $50 USD Present Value of Original Cost: $1500 USD
The problem is that this is an art more than a science. The "1865" conversion rate would work okay for seeing how much a cup of coffee cost then - but it'd give an impressively misleading equivalent value for the Alaska Purchase.
There are certainly any number of government publications (and presumably websites) from around the world that give a wide range of economic indexes for inflation, employment, population, interest, GDP, etc. The application of these national indexes to specific locations would produce totally unreliable results. If no ships were bringing coffee to Alaska in 1865 it's value there may have been considerably higher than elsewhere, and those inhabitants may have needed to be satisfied with a bitter blend of chicory.
Ec
[apologies to Ray, who gets this twice]
On 18/10/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There are certainly any number of government publications (and presumably websites) from around the world that give a wide range of economic indexes for inflation, employment, population, interest, GDP, etc. The application of these national indexes to specific locations would produce totally unreliable results. If no ships were bringing coffee to Alaska in 1865 it's value there may have been considerably higher than elsewhere, and those inhabitants may have needed to be satisfied with a bitter blend of chicory.
Mmm-mm, chicory.
My point was not so much local economics as changes in scale - depending on what measurement you use, the $7.2m paid to buy Alaska in 1867 could be anything from just shy of ninety million (the value quoted in [[Alaska purchase]], which I suspect is nonsensical) to very nearly ten billion. I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you what is more reasonable - but encouraging the use of "worth $x in modern money" is going to be meaningless a lot of the time, especially if we have it generated automatically.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
"Angela" wrote: [snip]
For example, some issues already raised are whether links to Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a template for this on the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia) but so far any links have only been added manually.
Specifically in connection with this (I created the template and I suspect most of the additions are mine to date), is there any particular problem with adding this template to each article referenced from Placeopedia?
Someone on their list said we should be using a proper geo-thingy system, but I'm not wanting to wait for ages until they decide what they're doing, I want to do stuff now.
As a point of principle, would it be OK if some took it upon themselves to obtain some sort of list from Placeopedia and instruct a bot to add the appropriate links to the appropriate article?
Please note that I'm not volunteering myself at this stage, since my Internet access is strictly work-based and therefore does not allow the time to do it properly. I just want to know whether this idea is overstepping the bounds.
I know we can't do the equivalent with say IMDb, but this is because of copyright problems. Placeopedia is using Wikipedia data to connect through to Google Maps: I can't see that there would be an equivalent problem.
I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia with externals to them?
I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
Geodata in articles about subjects which have a definite location belongs in Wikipedia, that much is clear. I don't think its at all clear that we need to undertake a large effort to integrate with a third party site which is providing a service we should ultimately provide ourselves.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia with externals to them?
I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
I agree with Gregory. I am not thrilled with extra externallink possibilities for articles. Certainly not if the data belongs in wikipedia anyway.
We are not google, yet some articles on the English wikipedia contain over 150 external links. The excuse given is cite your sources. I feel this is going to far slowly but surely and growing out of hand.
An external link is a way of saying ''we are lazy'' go to another site.
Waerth/Walter
On 10/18/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I would hate for an opportunity like this, of getting something really useful up and running really quickly, to be lost while we dither.
I don't see how it's going to be lost, is there another free encyclopedia that they'll partner with if we don't slather wikipedia with externals to them?
I suspect that, like myself, many people have a hard time getting excited about filling up wikipedia with more externals rather than enhancing the value of Wikipedia directly.
Geodata in articles about subjects which have a definite location belongs in Wikipedia, that much is clear. I don't think its at all clear that we need to undertake a large effort to integrate with a third party site which is providing a service we should ultimately provide ourselves.
I agree. I hate to pour cold water on what would be very cool and potentially useful.
But if you've used Placeopedia, you'll notice it's not wiki.
While you can place a "pin" on their map and link to a Wikipedia article, you cannot directly change another person's contribution if you have an issue with it. You have to fill out a form and an alternate location which gets submitted. The process thereafter is unknown.
Who are the folks mediating that decision? Suddenly we would have Wikipedia pointing (en mass) to a map system controlled by a single person/entity. There is not much information on their site, other than to mail "team@placeopedia.com." The "mysociety.org" site which sponsors it points to Tom Steinberg as the project leader.
But given Wikipedia's tradition of openess and transparency, a strong link to Placeopedia, the way it operates now would seem to be rather incompatible with that idea.
-Andrew
Angela wrote:
Placeopedia is an online application which integrates Google Maps images and Wikipedia encyclopedia articles.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeopedia andhttp://www.placeopedia.com/.
[..]
For example, some issues already raised are whether links to Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a template for this on the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia) but so far any links have only been added manually.
There already is a way to link to map services: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates]]. The only disatvantage is that it's not located at wikipedia but links to an external server. You should better focus on this but manually adding links to *any* single selected map service.
Another issue is whether users of Placepedia should be able to add categories to Wikipedia directly from Placeopedia.
Nope. Maybe when it'll be possible to move categories and watch categories (the additions/removes, not the pages!) without needing a bot.
Greetings, Jakob
P.S: You can automatically compare placeopedia data with wikipedia geodata templates and vice versa. Directly editing coordinates stored in wikipedia articles using placeopedia would be nice but I don't see an easy way to do this.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org