[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
VMs: VMs Wiki...
At 23:47 07/02/2004 -0600, Dennis wrote:
> > 3. Though there is a lot of detailed data (and some information) on
> > various websites, there is no single, incrementally updated
> > repository for concrete results, as is the case with many mailing
> > lists that maintain a FAQ document.
I think the way is with a Voynich Wiki. We now have two:
and on WikiBooks:
We own the one on voynich.info, but the WikiBooks site
probably has better tools. I don't have much experience with
Wiki's, but I say we choose
one and go with it! How much space do we have on each
one? Can we put images on each one?
The first one (my phiki-based one) isn't what web-guys call "scalable" -
that is, I don't think it would cope well with a large amount of content.
Also, it's not protected, nor properly backed-up (except in Google's cache
& the Wayback Machine (probably)). Not Really Recommended. :-(
The second one (the WikiBooks-hosted one) is *much* better - it's a fully
featured (perhaps even over-engineered?) Wiki, part of a site dedicated to
producing collaborative free textbooks for subjects (under the GNU Public
License, AKA "copyleft"), well-funded and "permanent-feeling". *Highly
However, all I've done is put up the merest outlines of a sketchy framework
- as I don't know for sure what would be the most appropriate structure for
this, I've just guessed & hoped that someone with a more structured brain
than me will correct it (it's the Wiki Way, trust me!)
Ideally everyone should put their Voynich pages on it,
The first problem is working out the best kind of container would be. My
opinion is that we should have a page per VMs page, grouped into quires
(bifolios seem a fairly inappropriate level to categorise by, but there may
be some subtlety I'm missing there). Each VMs page webpage should be named
after the VMs page name (ie, f90v1 etc) & should hold all the information
collected within the most recent interlinear relevant to that page, as well
as links to threads in the archive to do with that page, opinions on that
page from people's websites (with their permission), and links to
discussions elsewhere (without their permission). Herbal pages should also
contain Dana Scott's plant identification(s) (plus Hugh O'Neill's if we can
get access to it?)
BTW: once I've submitted my dissertation (fingers crossed for tomorrow, if
my fingers don't start bleeding from too much typing), I'll Wikify a few
pages along these lines & see how it goes.
Is this an encyclopaedia or a textbook? Well... it's a bit of both,
actually. The problem with the main Wikipedia project is that it's not
about creating (or negotiating) new knowledge, it's about summarising
external knowledge (so we don't really fit there). However, as long as
we're polite about what we do, I'm sure we'll fit well into the Wikibooks
and we could then set up some sort of search engine, if there
isn't one already.
AFAIK, it's already searched extensively by all the major search engines,
so accessing it shouldn't be a problem.
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: