On Feb 26, 2011 9:00 PM, "Thomas Morton" <morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well RS is my personal "axe to grind" :) and I think this is perfectly
> acceptable, and indeed an inviolate, reliable source.
>
> With such matters we have to consider content, author, publisher. Content is
> fine, just factual secondary level information based on historical research.
> Author is fine too, NMM is clearly an excellent academic source in the field
> of naval history. Indeed, you'd struggle to find better I think. Publisher,
> in this case is no real issue; NMM are de-facto publishers whether it goes
> on their site, Wikisource or as a data dump on Commons.
>
> So I doubt you will see any resistance to it as a RS :)
>
> Tom / ErrantX
>
> On 26 February 2011 20:52, Chris Keating <fightingforfairness@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Alex - I will certainly make that point to them. The dataset *might* yet
>> end up on the NMM's own website, though there are apparently some obstacles
>> to doing so.
>>
>> WSC - I'd thought about Wikisource. I'm not particularly familiar with that
>> project - their inclusion guidelines say "Wikisource does not collect
>> reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text.
>> Such information has not been previously published, is often user-compiled
>> and unverified, and does not fit the goals of Wikisource." The interesting
>> bit is probably the interpretation of "complete source text", as we're
>> definitely not talking about user-compiled info, and hopefully it does very
>> much meet the goals of Wikisource.
>>
>> Is there anyone here who is involved with Wikisource who can offer an
>> opinion?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:47:45 +0000
>>
>> > From: werespielchequers@gmail.com
>> > To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] National Maritime Museum collaboration
>> >
>> > Perhaps it would be appropriate to load their material to WikiSource
>> > rather than directly to Wikipedia
>> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page
>> >
>> > Then we can cite it in Wikipedia, or if the license is compatible and
>> > they have an article where we don't we could even import bits into
>> > Wikipedia.
>> >
>> > Some historians might raise an eyebrow if the NMM releases its
>> > information on one of our sister projects, but once they get used to
>> > the idea I would hope they'd be happy to cite it.
>> >
>> > WereSpielChequers
>> >
>> > On 26 February 2011 19:25, Alex Stinson <stinsoad@dukes.jmu.edu> wrote:
>> > >> Deryck - yes, it would be bizarre if Wikipedia told the National
>> Maritime
>> > >> Museum their work wasn't up to our standards. However, because it's
>> unusual
>> > >> to get information of this nature and in this format, I'm keen to
>> establish
>> > >> a consensus at the outset rather than risk an argument about it later.
>> > >>
>> > > I have been working with Royal Navy history for the past year or so and
>> am
>> > > working under one of NAM Rodger's students right now in writing an
>> > > undergraduate honors thesis. As it goes for organizations which publish
>> or
>> > > support Naval History, the NMM is considered one of the more important
>> > > authorities along with the Naval Records Society which sponsor or
>> publish
>> > > sets of sources. It clearly is reliable and I would be surprised if
>> someone
>> > > questioned it.
>> > > That being said, as Historian, I would find the donation much more
>> useful if
>> > > it were sponsored on another website (a closed wiki vetted by the
>> NMM?),
>> > > that way historians can use it without having to cite one of the
>> Wikimedia
>> > > projects. History, in particular, is a mildly backward field when it
>> comes
>> > > to digital integration into scholarship. And it is certainly one of the
>> > > fields I don't think we will see lots of citations to Wikipedia in
>> anytime
>> > > soon. Naval History is one of the worst subfields
>> for digital integration as
>> > > well (most of the journals published in the field are not available
>> > > digitally yet). Any sources published digitally outside of a pay wall
>> would
>> > > be infinitely useful for scholarship. That would also be useful for
>> vetting
>> > > of Wikipedia facts, instead of the content being inserted once, it
>> could be
>> > > refered to for verifiability for however long it is needed.
>> > > Alex Stinson
>> > > User:Sadads
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> > > wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
>> > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> > > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> > wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
>> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>