[OHM] Wikimaps reporting

[Mikel Maron]

Alright everyone, quite enough of this off topic opinions on Wikipedia. We're talking about historic mapping here, and Wikimedia is doing interesting work. Let's move on.
 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


>________________________________
> From: Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>
>To: "Historic at openstreetmap.org" <Historic at openstreetmap.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 12:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [OHM] Wikimaps reporting
> 
>
>Susanna Ånäs wrote:
>> You are right in that the Wikipedia encyclopedia does not lend itself to
>> interpretations or original research, but relies on cited sources of
>> information. It is exactly that what has given it more credibility among the
>> scholars, the GLAMmers - Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums - that we
>> trying to work together with in bringing more of the historical stuff into
>> Wikimedia's projects.
>>
>> Also, your observation of deletions with inadequate source references is what
>> has put many unprepared scholars off. Having complemented with (quality) first
>> hand information without referring to sources has been the beginning and end for
>> contributions. I agree that there should be more space for negotiation - but I
>> have not been involved in discussions how to realize this.
>
>I think things are a little better today. But historic material has been lost 
>which would better be maintained in parallel with what WAS allowed to remain. I 
>will not go into detail, but my main grip was with how 'software' was handled 
>and many of the deleted packages were important development tracks relating to 
>those that were allowed to remain. The important source references are what HAS 
>now been lost and we can't now track the development of what remains via 
>wikipedia :(
>
>> I am very interested in this space between Wikimedia and OSM with historical
>> geography and eventually historical storytelling. The practices have not been
>> invented yet - or maybe they have - but they come together from different
>> sources. I hope you are willing to explore!
>
>I can see a place for 'quality' information, but I can also see a place for 
>displaying research for others to assist with. Personally I view the 'history' 
>of how material came into existence is as useful as the data itself even if the 
>final result is different. 'Delete' is not in my method, except for malicious 
>actions, and even then they should be retained IN the version history.
>
>If you follow the main OSM list you will see my posts about 'shared material' 
>and OSM providing a base for cooperation rather than simply a database. 
>Personally I see a lot of the historic data being contained in the main database 
>with 'start_date', but marrying in third party data like the old OS mapping is 
>already available, and the next step is providing 'overlays' of data that can 
>use this existing and expanding background data.
>
>> Susanna
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/9 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk <mailto:lester at lsces.co.uk>>
>>
>>     Mikel Maron wrote:
>>
>>         Just seeing this. If you aren't interested in any aspect of projects talked
>>         about here, that's fine, but no reason to give this kind of stop energy. But
>>         many of us are interested in collaborations, and welcome the thinking
>>         and ideas.
>>         It's all about the Commons.
>>
>>
>>     My objections are not directed to the "don't" but rather to the manor in
>>     which contributions to wikipedia then get stripped as "not in line with our
>>     objectives". If this attitude has changed in recent years then wikipedia
>>     need to reduce the appearance of some of the warnings that appear on what is
>>     essentially important content.
>>
>>     Contributors who put effort into content need to feel that their work is
>>     valued, and will not simply be deleted. This does of cause need to be
>>     tempered with the blocking of blatant vandalism but 'advertising activity'
>>     should not be limited because someone makes a judgement call that an
>>     articles target "does not have enough interest to be valid!" ... We would
>>     not block the appearance of material on the mapping simply because it's "not
>>     got enough supporting evidence", and on historic mapping this may be more
>>     important so that alternate material may need to be supported and disputes
>>     documented rather than simply deleted?
>
>
>-- 
>Lester Caine - G8HFL
>-----------------------------
>Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
>_______________________________________________
>Historic mailing list
>Historic at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20130709/6094dc12/attachment.html>