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