Wiki issues (was: Re: re: re: re: cunnan, an SCA wiki)
- Tom writes:
> Alastair, thank you for your response.No problem ;-)
> Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerismYes I know they do, but when you do very large numbers of Google
searches (as I do) you eventually start noticing how often exactly the
same texts that appear on Wikipedia also appears in other places. And I
really can't believe that encyclopedias like Columbia and Britannica are
copying from Wikipedia... Again, theory is one thing, practice is
another. (eBay has policies for stolen property and looted artefacts,
too, but that doesn't stop them coming up for sale, either)
> I wish I knew what specifically was incorrect soIt's not a question of just one or two things. This is something I come
> that I could go fix it for the next reader.
across very regularly.
> Regarding accademic rigour, from the article "Replies toWell absolute truth is impossible anyway (which means that lots of
> common objections" in the section on Trustworthiness: "Note
> that the three leading competing online encyclopedias have
> disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy -
> Britannica, Encarta and Bartleby. Sometimes the staff of
> those encyclopedias forget about the disclaimers.
academics don't have to worry about suddenly becoming unemployed, I
guess... *grin*). Basic factual errors, however, are not what I expect
to find in an encyclopedia (dates wrong, quotations missassigned, wrong
spouses... need I go on?). Incidentally, while the theory says that such
errors will eventually be fixed, that's no use to someone needing the
correct info *now*.
> In short, quality increases over time as people contribute.*IF* people contribute. If one person contributes an article with errors
and no-one else browsing feels competent enough to correct them, the
errors remain. The danger is always the "it must be right because
someone else would have corrected it otherwise" assumption. Most seekers
after knowledge are NOT experts, though, and that's why they're
This becomes an issue in particular where the article relates to an area
that is somewhat 'arcane', i.e. very specialised and/or obscure. How
many people, for example, are REALLY interested and knowledgable enough
in the history of the Great Moravian Empire to be comfortable with the
idea of editing/correcting an article on the subject? So the 'Great
Moravia' entry on Wikipedia is listed as "part of the SLOVAK HISTORY
series" (!!!). It goes on to make statements like "The probable capital
of Great Moravia was called Moravia", for which to the best of my (quite
extensive) knowledge there is precisely no evidence whatsoever - even
the term "Great Moravia" is first known to have been used only a century
after that (proto-)state's collapse, and that was in Byzantine Greek!
(There *are* references to a few places - see my timeline at
http://www.skriptorium.info/english/r_gmoravia.htm if you're
> Please accept my apologies, but I do not understandRomantic as in being a product of Romanticism or the Romantic Revival
> what you mean by big R "Romantic" material.
("the 18th/19th century revolt against classicism or neo-classicism to a
more picturesque, original, free and imaginative style in literature and
art", as Chambers Dictionary rather charmingly puts it...) - in other
words, with a lot of idealistic interpretation, a rather cavalier
approach to facts (arising from historical records, archaeology and so
forth), and often a great belief in the literal accuracy/truth of
folklore, the ability of myths/legends/oral histories to remain
absolutely unchanged for centuries etc.
> Regarding the possible dilution of focus, I must point outFalse analogy - we're not talking about the Internet as a whole, but
> that the number of websites focusing on the naked human form
> has not at all affected my ability to hunt for jobs on the
> web. Similiarly, I propose that the profusion of clothing
> related pages would not obscure the limited number of pages
> on cooking, dance or weaponry.
about specific, thematically-based sites/pages. Were a Russian Knowledge
Page, for example, to contain 50 articles on clothing and 20 on cookery,
but only 1 article on arms/armour, then I think future contributors
would be less likely to submit information about the weapons to that
page, because it "wouldn't be that sort of site". Equally, someone
looking for info on arms/armour wouldn't be likely to rate the page
highly as a reliable source either.
> Overall, I am trying to find a place whereYou are confusing two different issues here, I think. Issue 1 is HOW
> the Slavic Interest Group has space for its
particular pages should be written/maintained (individual editors,
moderated posting, free posting/Wiki etc.); issue 2 is WHERE they should
be posted. My position is that Knowledge Pages should have an editor -
which does NOT mean that ONLY the editor should contribute to them!
> a way to contribute small amounts of timeResearch is (almost by definition) time consuming, as is article
writing. It's the price one pays for accuracy, I suspect.
> and a continuing ability to fight link rotLink rot is certainly a problem... the answer of course is to have
knowledge pages that have articles and not just links....
> so that large portions ot the knowledge pages do notHow about backing up the pages to a zip file every so often, and having
> become inaccessible due to unfortunate circumstances in the
> contributors life.
this stored on the mailing list's Yahoo! pages?
Alastair Millar BSc(Hons) - http://www.skriptorium.info
= Translation & consultancy for the heritage industry =
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date:
- I'm a big fan of providing as much information as possible. That's why I like the idea that we have a hard copy newsletter, a discussion group, web pages with substance, and web pages with links. I have no problem with adding one or more wiki's to the mix.
Do I trust a wiki? Nope, not in your life. Do I think a wiki could be helpful? Sure, and that's enough for me.
So, I'm offering to include a link to a SIG-related wiki (or wikis) off of the main SIG page (http://slavic.freeservers.com) but I don't see it as a replacement for the knowledge pages. In other words, I'd like to see both.
This doesn't have to be the final word on the discussion, but I did want to clarify that I'm not going to choose one over the other. We can have both.
> We can have both.Yeah. I think I'll try to do what I can on Cunnan without stepping on
> -- Paul
anyone's copyrightten articles. We'll see how things look in a year.
>How about backing up the pages to a zip file every so often, and havingI thought we'd used up nearly all the space that yahoo is willing to
>this stored on the mailing list's Yahoo! pages?
give us. Oh, yeah, I was/am mixing 2 issues with storage and editors.
I'd volunteer for one of the editor jobs cause I can do the technical
labor but I don't know enough to do the academic labor.
>>How about backing up the pages to a zip file every so often, and havingWell, the Russian Knowledge pages are backed up on my home computer.
> >this stored on the mailing list's Yahoo! pages?
> I thought we'd used up nearly all the space that yahoo is willing to
> give us. Oh, yeah, I was/am mixing 2 issues with storage and editors.
At least, the last time I did an update, I saved everything, but that
was about 2 years ago. So, having a backup isn't really an issue, at
least in this particular case. And the Russian Knowledge Page isn't
located on the Discussion Group's Yahoo account, so that is a separate
> I'd volunteer for one of the editor jobs cause I can do the technicalThe technical stuff isn't really an issue in the case of the Russian
> labor but I don't know enough to do the academic labor.
Knowledge Pages, although it might be an issue for other Pages. I am
willing to continue the web-authoring side of things, but I can't keep
up with the editor side of things, at least, not all by myself, which
is the real issue. We have the webspace, we have someone to stick
things up on the web, but we don't have enough people to edit/moderate
(or whatever you wish to call it) the content.