RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Printable Version +- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat) +-- Forum: Community (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Romanarmy.com Projects (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=22) +--- Thread: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal (/showthread.php?tid=7481) |
RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Eleatic Guest - 11-21-2006 In other history forums I have seen how users coordinate their efforts to improve on Wikipedia. I propose that we do the same here at RAT. Fortunately, there is already a portal on the Roman military at RAT, which could help channel our efforts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mil ... cient_Rome I already made some contributions over the last few weeks and it's even more fun than I thought. New Articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bematist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taccola http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_des_Eupalinos Contributions to existing articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_%28machine%29 (ancient Greek and Roman cranes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelbarrow (ancient Greece and Medieval Europe) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_dock (Antiquity and Renaissance Europe) Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Robert Vermaat - 11-21-2006 I plan to modify the Plumbata entry. Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Eleatic Guest - 11-21-2006 I noticed that with a few smart measures one can counteract unwarranted editions fairly well. 1. Put the article on the watchlist 2. Provide Footnotes 3. In case you want to modify/correct existing assertions, give a brief explanation on the discussion page 4. Set up new articles and try to write them from the outset comprehensively Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Eleatic Guest - 11-29-2006 Created List of the world's largest domes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_domes Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Eleatic Guest - 04-12-2007 Expanded that list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology Introduced a few articles on extant Roman bridges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_bridges Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS - 09-15-2007 I plan to writte a few articles on Roman Forts nearby where I live (northeast england - county durham) that protected Dere Street, mainly Longovicium, Vindomora and the one at binchester (forgot its roman name). Will post a link here once these are finished. Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Magnus - 12-01-2007 If someone wants to keep a master list of the articles, I'd volunteer to be a "wiki-watchdog" to make sure no one we don't know about edits them. Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Tarbicus - 12-01-2007 I amended the timeframe for the use of segs on this article (to include the lateness of the Carlisle and Leon finds and push it further than the usual 250AD): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mili ... _equipment After explaining on the Discussion page I was quite rightly asked for sources, which I promptly did. Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Eleatic Guest - 01-14-2008 Completely overhauled Diolkos and introduced a veritable footnote massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diolkos Wrote the section on antiquity at Galley slave : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_slave Still lacking though Simon James (2001c), ‘The Roman galley slave: Ben-Hur and the birth of a factoid’, Public Archaeology, 2, 35-49 for a more complete account. Re: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal - Eleatic Guest - 01-14-2008 Quote:If someone wants to keep a master list of the articles, I'd volunteer to be a "wiki-watchdog" to make sure no one we don't know about edits them. That sounds good. Perhaps we should really establish kind of a Wiki task force for coordinating our efforts. Sometimes, on controversial topics, it is really helpful to have an assisting voice of reason, to prevent articles from overtaken by biased Wikipedians. alternative to Wikipedia - richsc - 01-15-2008 A possible good alternative to Wikipedia is Google's upcoming Knol. Changes are not anonymous, and authors are cited. Description of knol: Quote:Google Knol, an Encyclopedia Written by Experts Example of a KNOL Re: alternative to Wikipedia - Robert Vermaat - 01-15-2008 Quote:Unlike Wikipedia, Knol wants article written by people who are an authority on a subject. Oh brilliant. And when, pray tell Mr Google Sir, have there ever been scientific fields where all experts agree on a theory? :twisted: compared to... - richsc - 01-16-2008 The article Mike Bishop wrote for Wikipedia would stay Mike Bishop's article, for example. The Economist can get away without attribution, but my preference is for signed authorship, even if 'amateurs'. Re: compared to... - Robert Vermaat - 01-16-2008 Quote:The article Mike Bishop wrote for Wikipedia would stay Mike Bishop's article, for example. The Economist can get away without attribution, but my preference is for signed authorship, even if 'amateurs'.Mine is too Rich, but my point was - which author is to be selected as 'the' authority for any article. Other authors may very well have problems with the choice of 'just one' author. This is how list wars start, and it may do nothing for the credibility of a source to have accredited authors shy away from it because of the exclusion of multiple voices. Besides, many accredited authors and scholars may well feel they have better things to do, since accredited papers with references cost a lot of time to produce. Also, they may want to receive a fee for the publication of their work. And are these articles to be free of copyright? google beta - richsc - 01-17-2008 You'll have to check with Google on that, as it's still in beta. As to objections as to which author to pick, other encyclopediae don't seem to worry too much about it since the publishers take responsibility for choosing the author. Google may allow for comments to be published taking exception to whatever the stand is of the primary writer. Might be worth commenting to them. Remember, whatever Google produces will show up on Google searches before anything from Wikipedia. |