Alexander Wiki launch

[ancientlibrary]

So, I have a GÇ£wikiGÇ¥ installedGÇöa complete installation of the software that runs Wikipedia, running on a very robust and capable server. Does the Alexander community want it? Do you want an GÇ£Alexander Wiki.GÇ¥ LetGÇÖs talk it over.(If you don't know Wikipedia, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great and browse around.) MY OPINION I think Wikis are a great way to work through a topic, a great way to leverage what everyone knows and can contribute. In contrast to the articles here, a Wiki allows more than one author to contribute, and everyone to GÇ£write what they know.GÇ¥ IGÇÖve been itching to work on my interestsGÇöAristander, Alexander in Anatolia, etc.GÇöand want an outlet. IGÇÖm sure some others here feel the same. WouldnGÇÖt it be great to leverage all our skills and interests, and bring in new people? WouldnGÇÖt it be great if the articles included quoted texts from Susan, links to Livius and photos from travelers? Although Pothos does seem to have a number of core contributors, I havenGÇÖt seen it expanding its authorship. Can this be a way to greater interaction?MY QUESTIONS*Do people think this is a good idea?
*Are people interested in contributing?
*Are Pothos authors interested in contributing articles to the Wiki? Contributors would lose absolute control over who edited their work.
*Are Pothos authors interested in editor status? (Ability to lock articles, move pages, ban users, etc.)
*What copyright should the material bear? I favor a true GÇ£copyleftGÇ¥ solution, like Wikipedia. We could, however, do a site-specific GÇ£copyleftGÇ¥ solution.
* Should edits require registration? Approval? I favor starting it free and seeing what happens.
*What other policies should be basic? I favor WikipediaGÇÖs GÇ£neutral point of view,GÇ¥ policies on citation and spelling, and special prohibition on ethnic warring, etc. I think the rein should be held tight, which I think the smaller size will make easy.MY PLANOne way or the other, I am starting a classical wiki. IGÇÖd like to start with Alexander, but my ultimate hope is to expand it by increments into a true GÇ£Wiki Classical Dictionary.GÇ¥ What do you think?

[jan]

Hi Tim, I have taken a look, but will read all copy as time passes. It is quite excellent in presentation form, and shows the care you have taken. It will take a lot of dedication to make this complete in all categories, and I congratulate you for your goal. It is very impressive. Jan

[ancientlibrary]

Help! I think you think that Wikipedia is my project. I cannot claim that! Wikipedia's been around for years. The entry there has been developing for a while. Bill Thayer was a big contributor; I wrote much of the sources section at one time, but time has changed it. No, I propose an Alexander- (and later Classical-) specific wiki, more like a classical dictionary, the prosopographical work of Berve and Heckel or Pothos itself than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" with the limitations and larger scope that implies. One ground-rule would be that whole entries not be cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia.Specialized Wikis have started springing up, for example "Armeniapedia" (http://www.armeniapedia.org) is an Armenian-specific Wiki.

[marcus]

Hi Tim,It certainly looks great, and in theory I'd be delighted to get involved. As always it's a question of time, but I've never let that stop me!I haven't had a chance to have a full browse through your link yet, but at first glance I like it - will have a proper browse tomorrow ...ATBMarcus

[ancientlibrary]

Okay. I should not have posted that link; it is causing confusion. I guess wikis are not so well known. The link is to *Wikipedia*, not to what I propose.
I haven't posted the URL my Wiki yet. The Wiki I propose is installed, but has no *content*. The content would have to be either written or imported.
I want to know if people are interested in working on such a wiki, separately or by moving Pothos articles there for everyone to work on.
Briefly, the idea of a Wiki is this:
Anyone can edit a wiki, anytime, changing the page creating new pages--anything. Surprisingly, this works. Occasionally people vandalize a wiki, but they keep careful track of all edits, so it's easy to revert bad changes. Wikis, particularly the MediaWiki wiki used by Wikipedia and installed on my system, uses a simple markup language. Basically you just type, but if you want to link to another article you just enclose it in brackets. External links, headers, bullets, etc. are all very simple to do. You can also "track" certain articles, and the wiki will let you know when "your" articles have been changed. Each page also has a "talk" section, where--if the article gets contentious--you can discuss the best way to write it.

[ancientlibrary]

Here is a five-minute radio article on Wikipedia, from "Weekend Edition" (National Public Radio).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4506421
I like Wikipedia, but an encyclopedia is not a classical dictionary. Nor is it specialized "Alexander the Great" encyclopedia. I think an Alexander wiki would be a real addition to web scholarship on Alexander.

[marcus]

It's OK, Tim, I didn't misunderstand you. But I do need to browse what you did send a bit more, in order to get a better idea of how *your* one might be organised/arranged/created. (For a start, I couldn't possibly have thought this was yours, when there was a misspelling of 'Macedonian' on the very front page ...)ATBMarcus

[Andrys]

I've been asking that members of alexandriaeschate
yahoogroup maybe help keep that general Wiki site's
Alexander topic as accurate as possible, via
correcting some statements. Re 'editing' -- a person on Wiki can't edit
the basic "stub." I added to another topic
and saw that. But it seems they can edit
the additional contributions by others which
is a real stopper, no? ...

[ancientlibrary]

No, by default, you can edit anything in Wikipedia. Subheads generally have an "edit" next to them--making it seem the top isn't editable--but you can edit the whole page (including the top) by hitting the "edit page" tab. Admins can lock a page, but this is rarely done. Wikipedia certainly contains errors. Bill Thayer has a virtual stroke about them on the discussion page. But, all in all, it's been getting better. I conceive of an Alexander Wiki / Wiki Classical Dictionary having a slightly more "inside baseball" feel to itGÇöseparate pages for events and controversies, better citation of ancient and modern texts, automatic tie-ins to Suida entries, etc. I conceive of the difference being like that separating the Oxford Classical Dictionary from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Kit]

I was a bit worried about the statement that Alexander used Gurkhas and cavalry wielding two-handed swords! That would seem a recipe for an ancient 'Jackass the Movie'! Whilst the idea that anyone could edit the wikipedia entries is certainly interesting it does lend itself to factual errors, such as these, appearing. I would prefer if everyone could submit contributions, but there was some kind a 'check' on the material before it was ultimately posted to the site? Purely to correct factual errors, not to censor differences of opinion or interpretation.I'm not sure the wikipedia would add much to Alexander studies if it were riddled with obvious errors.regards,Kit

[abm]

i think it is a very good idea, but I agree with what Chris said concerning factual errors.
I would certainly like to contribute when i have the time.regards,
abm

[S]

Greetings All,I am certain members of Alexandria Eschate would be interested (but would also hope this would not distract them from developing folders, etc both for the discussion group site and the up-coming web page that the discussion group is designed for... The AE site has been long in planning and I do not want the originators to think I am working at cross purposes.. Still, I suppose AE memebrs will be able to determine where and how they apply energy for maximum efficicency and imnpact.. they seem a well-rounded group with much drive and energy.)I admit to having some concerns after reading both several commentaries on the accuracy of the Wikipedia format and articles from Wikipedia that were inaccurate..without a primary editor who checks for accuracy on a daily basis, it seems to lend itself to a potential for inaccuracy *until* it is edited.. so how often would it have to be checked? Tim, would this be a priority task for you?One of the things I enjoy about Pothos is that as soon as a post come up, numerous members are discussing, correcting, debating the accuracy of the information; Pothos has the additional bonus of having members from *both* sides of historical arguments..can Wiki be set up to operate in this same fashion? If the individual loses ocntrol of the information edit, who *does* edit the final piece? Or does each article go up and stand unedited until someone notices the inaccuracy? Any additional information would be helpful...That aside, Andrys *has* suggested/invited AE members do some editing/contributing to Wiki articles and I would certainly trust their contributions and their willingness to verify information prior to posting!Regards,
Sikander

[ancientlibrary]

Okay, letGÇÖs address the quality issue head on. HereGÇÖs my take on (1) Reasons for optimism, (2) Features I can add, (3) Guidelines.REASONS FOR OPTIMISM1. The contributors and pages are limited. It will be easier to keep track of the pages, and get to know the contributors. 2. A community centered on Alexander will not have the GÇ£unmoored editorsGÇ¥ who roam around Wikipedia GÇ£helpingGÇ¥ on topics they know little about.3. A small community will be less of a target for vandals (also see registration below). 4. Unity of topic allows for specific guidelines on appropriate argument and evidence. Wikipedia has a rule against bias, but little else. After all, different rules apply across disciplines, and Wikipedia must embrace both Greek history and the ins-and-outs of the fluffernutter. We can do better, and we can enforce the rules with a little more vigor. See below for my suggested guidelines.5. Wikipedia has administrators, but it doesnGÇÖt really have editors. The Alexander Wiki/Wiki Classical Dictionary (AW/WCD) will have editors. I donGÇÖt want to give people GÇ£duties,GÇ¥ but the guidelines will specify that editors are the ultimate arbiters. 6. Wikipedia is very wary of banning people, and never bans for more than a few months. After all, even the worst offender is useful somewhere (eg., the fluffernutter). We can hold the reins a little tighter. I doubt this will be necessary.FEATURES I CAN ADD1. A central place for discussion. I can set up such a forum, or we can use Pothos. If disputes arose, this would be where it was talked out.2. Only registered contributors will be allowed to post. MediaWiki registration isnGÇÖt hard, but at least we wonGÇÖt have contributors from difficult-to-remember IP addresses. (See next message for guidelines)

[ancientlibrary]

(Continued from last message)GUIDELINESGuidelines are useful in two ways. First, contributors may pay attention to them. Second, contributors and editors can cite them when they make changes. Lastly, editors can cite them when they ban someone. The basic guidelines is GÇ£employ the norms of good scholarship, specifically classical scholarship.GÇ¥ WikipediaGÇÖs diverse content and encyclopedia format precludes a general statement of whatGÇÖs appropriate scholarship, but the AW/WCD has no such limitations. The GÇ£norms of good scholarshipGÇ¥ would include:1. When in doubt, cite GÇö Wikipedia is somewhat averse to citation. In-text citation is rare, even in classical entries; footnotes are almost unheard of. Once or twice IGÇÖve posted comments like GÇ£Provide a source for that, or I will remove it.GÇ¥ It didnGÇÖt go over well, IGÇÖve never seen others do the same. A basic principle of the AW/WCD would be GÇ£When in doubt, cite.GÇ¥ At a minimum, all quotes from classical authors should bear in-text citations, and controversial statements must be backed-up with evidence. Evidence in turn must meet the norms of good classical scholarship.2. Avoid bias GÇö This is a core Wikipedia principle too (as GÇ£Neutral Point of ViewGÇ¥). The AW/WCD will add specific prohibitions against ethnic warring and discussion of questions like GÇ£Was Alexander Great?GÇ¥ outside of pages specifically on the topic. In general, much of the argument used in such cases fails other tests (eg., you cannot cite a legendary, lost Albanian book as proof that Alexander was Albanian), but I suspect a few pagesGÇöeg., The Ethnicity of Alexander the Great, Was Alexander Great?GÇöwill have to be locked so only editors can make changes. The editors will be encouraged to take a minimalist approach on these pages, eg., a simple nod to the opinions and some bibliography.3. Write to your level GÇö Editors are encouraged not to overreach. Some topics require technical expertise, specialized resources, etc.Other Wikipedia principles would apply, particularly GÇ£Respect others.GÇ¥

[ancientlibrary]

Sikander, Thanks for writing such a long and considered post. I posted a general response below. I agree with you there that there needs to be a central discussion place.More generally, I want to encourage some faith in the power of Wikis. The short answer to many of your questions would be "It would work like Wikipedia." This means that there would be no "submission" process. Changes would be immediate. By "contributors would lose control" I don't mean anything more than how Wikipedia works. Yes, errors would be introduced and would have to be noticed to be corrected. A smaller wiki would, however, be easier to deal with. There would be fewer pages to "watch" (MediaWiki provides such a feature). And the "All Recent Changes" page would actually be useful! (I can't imagine who uses it on Wikipedia.)More generally, I have faith in the process and the community. I don't see myself or any of the editors as policemen first. Certainly, some edits will have to be made, and contributors admonished or banned. But I also look forward to disagreements becoming topics for Pothos or its own dedicated board. Scholarship is discussion!Assertions to the contrary, I don't see that much discussion of the Pothos articles here. To get over those recent nasty posts, I started one on the Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to other discussions of the same sort.