[Foundation-l] Re: New Proposal: WikiMemory (repost)

Sun Sep 18 19:07:16 UTC 2005

Hi Folks:
I'm reposting this because I messed up the formatting when I first posted it (making it very hard to read--sorry).

Best, MP

First, thanks to everyone for the input. As a newbie, I really appreciate it. 
Let me address some of the good points you made.

1. How does Wikimemory fit Wikimedia’s mission?
        As I understand it, Wikimedia’s mission is to present the sum of 
human knowledge (and, more generally, “content”) to all of humanity,
free, by means of wikis.  The “data” that will be gathered on Wikimemory
 is part of human knowledge--it’s the part we use to understand the past. 
Empirically speaking, historical artifacts such as memoirs *are* the past, or 
at least the only evidence we have of it. You can’t see the past, or go visit; 
you can only look at what’s survived until the present. Moreover, if we don’t
gather all these memories, they will be lost (they are recorded presently in 
peoples’ heads and nowhere else). For the first time in history we 
have the ability to easily record and store the memories of a huge section 
of humanity.  If we do it, the future will be richer for it (e.g., bad actors won’t
 be able to deny their bad deeds—it’s be on the record for everyone to see).

2. How is Wikimemoir different from Wikimemorial 
In terms of purpose, the two are different: Wikimemorial memorializes tragedies,
while Wikimemoir records significant firsthand accounts of important events. 
In terms of data-type, Wikimemory’s content is similar to *part* of the content
on Wikimemorial (or 911wiki), namely, memoirs.  There will be no memorials 
on Wikimemory, at least as I conceive it.  The only metadata will be commentary 
on the primary sources (see below).

3. How’s it different from Wikipeople?  
        Apart from the commentaries on the memoirs, 
Wikimemory is all data and no metadata; Wikipeople 
is all metadata (biographies). Put another way, Wikimemory
 is a primary source; Wikipeople is a secondary source.  
Both are very valuable, and neither can really exist without the other.

4. Why a Wiki (or, To edit or not to edit)?  
To me, this is the most interesting question of all because it points up a conflict 
between two principles.  On the one hand, we want to be open and allow everyone
 to edit all content.  On the other hand, we want to gather and disseminate the sum
 of human knowledge to everyone, free.  In the case of Wikimemory (and several other
] wikis), these principles run up against one another.  Let me try to explain.  
It seems to me that there are two kinds of wikis, differentiated by the kind of data 
they gather. What might be called “scientific” wikis record the present state of *human knowledge*,
 that is, metadata or secondary sources.  I have in mind Wikipedia, Wikispecies, etc.
In contrast, what might be called “documentary” wikis gather, preserve and disseminate 
*artifacts*, that is, data or primary sources.  I have in mind 911Wiki, Wikisource, Wikiquote, 
Wikicommons, and Wikimemory. 

Now here’s the interesting part: the scientific wikis can be expected to become more valuable
 in an opensource environment as they are edited, but the documentary wikis can be expected
 to become less valuable as they are edited.  For example, the Wikipedia *entry* on the “Magna Carta” 
will improve as we learn more about the document and its context, but the Wikisource *edition* of 
the “Magna Carta” will only become less valuable as it is edited further away from its original, canonical 
state (the words as they were written in 1215).  Or to take a hypothetical example from Wikimemory, 
the Wikipedia *entry* on “Abu Graib Prison” will get better as historians uncover more about what happened
 there, but a Wikimemory *memoir* by one of the prisoners will only lose value if it is changed from its 
original disposition (that is, if it is vandalized).

And here’s where we run into a contradiction of principles or aims. If we stick to the open-source
principle, then we won’t be able to present historical artifacts, because they may be inaccurate
reflections of the originals (due to vandalism). This contradicts the all-human-knowledge principle. 
If, in contrast, we prioritize the all-human-knowledge principle, then we’ll probably be forced to 
make finished entries on  “documentary” wikis read-only. This violates the open-source principle.

Which is the superior principle?  I’d say it’s the all-human-knowledge principle.  There’s a lot to be
 gained by relaxing our stand on open-source here.  For this reason I propose that discuss making 
the finished content on Wikimemory read-only in some or most cases. Moreover, we can still be true
to our open-source principles by allowing users edit metadata (explanatory information about the
 memoirs) to the site. To return to our example, a well-annotated Magna Carta is much easier to 
understand than a Magna Carta in isolation.  And such annotations would be (in the sense meant 
before) “scientific,” they would improve as we learned more.

All the Best, Marshall