I have nothing useful to add on the hosting/editing/kind of wiki front, but everything you are saying makes sense to me. The WYSIWYG editing thing might not be an issue if there are people and/or guidelines available to help the more coding-illiterate among us.
Content and Organization:
4. Media Indices! Or, in my language, annotated bibliographies! Including videos, interviews, pictures, etc., yes? I am 100% behind annotated bibliographies. For that matter, everything you mention in terms of content sounds good to me, both the wants and not-wants. I would also add comprehensive timelines, which might be easier to assemble once we fill in everything else. Because what we're essentially trying to do here is create a canon encyclopedia, right?
I think the annotated bibliographies, the citations, and avoiding unsourced rumors all go together, and could potentially be handled by a team of citation-tracking and fact-checking mods who keep tabs on whether or not the information people submit is, in fact, substantiated, cited, and linked in the annotated bibliographies/indicies.
Probably starting out by creating a bunch of well-organized stubs and then letting people slowly fill in the information is the way to go. As people start filling in information, however, I imagine you'll needs mods checking their citations and checking their code - the researchers and the techs, if you will.
(The citation-checking process probably goes like this: x submits a bunch of tour dates without a citation, mod says "hey, x, do you have a citation for this information?" x says, "oh, whoops, here it is" or "I got it from here, where someone posted it but didn't cite it," in which case the mod gets to do detective work. If the dates can't be substantiated by the mod team and posters, they get taken off the wiki. Or something, I don't know, we'd have to work on the rules.)
I guess this is all a roundabout way of saying that, should it be deemed a good idea, I volunteer to be on the citation/fact-checking mod team. All the reference librarians in bandom should also be on this team. :)
Social Organization
Ideally nobody's toes get stepped on, because we are all working on it together! Um. Wishful thinking? Okay. But I don't know, I mean, I imagine the bandfandom_ref and bandom_primers people could potentially want to help out, since our shared goal is more canon for everyone. That's just me, though, and I know nothing about the politics.
I think an LJ comm might not be a bad idea, if only as a place to gather people who want to help out/submit information/talk about how this will work. Of course, doing that in your LJ is fun, too...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-13 11:37 pm (UTC)Content and Organization:
4. Media Indices!
Or, in my language, annotated bibliographies! Including videos, interviews, pictures, etc., yes? I am 100% behind annotated bibliographies. For that matter, everything you mention in terms of content sounds good to me, both the wants and not-wants. I would also add comprehensive timelines, which might be easier to assemble once we fill in everything else. Because what we're essentially trying to do here is create a canon encyclopedia, right?
I think the annotated bibliographies, the citations, and avoiding unsourced rumors all go together, and could potentially be handled by a team of citation-tracking and fact-checking mods who keep tabs on whether or not the information people submit is, in fact, substantiated, cited, and linked in the annotated bibliographies/indicies.
Probably starting out by creating a bunch of well-organized stubs and then letting people slowly fill in the information is the way to go. As people start filling in information, however, I imagine you'll needs mods checking their citations and checking their code - the researchers and the techs, if you will.
(The citation-checking process probably goes like this: x submits a bunch of tour dates without a citation, mod says "hey, x, do you have a citation for this information?" x says, "oh, whoops, here it is" or "I got it from here, where someone posted it but didn't cite it," in which case the mod gets to do detective work. If the dates can't be substantiated by the mod team and posters, they get taken off the wiki. Or something, I don't know, we'd have to work on the rules.)
I guess this is all a roundabout way of saying that, should it be deemed a good idea, I volunteer to be on the citation/fact-checking mod team. All the reference librarians in bandom should also be on this team. :)
Social Organization
Ideally nobody's toes get stepped on, because we are all working on it together! Um. Wishful thinking? Okay. But I don't know, I mean, I imagine the
I think an LJ comm might not be a bad idea, if only as a place to gather people who want to help out/submit information/talk about how this will work. Of course, doing that in your LJ is fun, too...