Wiki: Jack the Ripper

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

What's the procedure if an error is spotted on Wiki?

Regards,

Simon

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I have to say the Ripper wiki site is an excellent initiative. I have no doubt that it with time will become an invaluable resource.

As for myself, I spent some time and effort on updating the Swedish wikipedia Jack the Ripper page since it was in serious need of being revised and cleaned up. There was a lot of work involved with that, but of course a very minor effort compared to the now planned wiki Ripper site.

All the best

[The Grave Maurice]

Typographical errors and lapses in grammar are already creeping into the Wiki. Contributors should make every effort to avoid things that will harm the credibility of the site.

[spryder]

Hi folks -

If you see an error or would like to contribute, simply create an account on the Wiki at:

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup

Then email me or private message me and one of us will approve your account for editing privileges.

Thanks!

[Chris]

It seems churlish to be critical, considering the amount of work that has evidently gone into this so far, but I think citations to the sources of the information are absolutely vital, and unfortunately no citations at all seem to be given, though some sources are mentioned in passing.

[Monty]

Just incase anyone didnt catch Stephens post above.

Hi folks -

If you see an error or would like to contribute, simply create an account on the Wiki at:

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup

Then email me or private message me and one of us will approve your account for editing privileges.

Thanks!

Either contribute or not. However, if you chose the latter then dont moan if its not to you liking.

It is as much yours as it is mine.

Monty

[John Bennett]

RSI and Square eyes dept. reporting...

I think citations to the sources of the information are absolutely vital, and unfortunately no citations at all seem to be given, though some sources are mentioned in passing.

This is a valid point, Chris.

Just as a pointer to progress, the Wiki originally had the victims pages only, transplanted by SPR from the main casebook site. I initially volunteered to kick-start the locations pages really. However, I soon found myself going through every place, witness, policeman etc (it really is quite addictive) and creating separate pages for them too.

Then, starting at the top, I went through each victim page again and proceeded to enter information on each thing/person. The main sources I have been using (as I consider my entries as skeletons at the mo) are:

A-Z
JTR Sourcebook (for inquest and press material)
Sugden
Begg's The Facts (essentially the enlightening footnotes)
Shelden's victims book
Survey of London 27
Maps
My own research on the history of East End streets.

I cannot begin to contemplate the amount of entries/revisions/edits I have done and that doesn't include attaching thumbnail pics. Monty did some top-notch stuff beefing up my Mitre Square entry which goes to show how important collaboration is to this project. And I've only got as far as Annie Chapman!

What I wasn't able to do was attach references like they do in the standard Wiki as I don't know how to yet! Shame, as you are right, these things are important.

But it is early days and there needs to be more people working on this than SPR, Monty and me (with obviously too much time on his hands, LOL). Then I'm certain references will, and must, appear.

In the meantime, I'm just going to carry on putting the bare bones in (and learn how to do references). It's going to be a grower, I have no doubt.

All the best
John

[Chris]

Either contribute or not. However, if you chose the latter then dont moan if its not to you liking.

I assume that was directed at least partly at me. If so, my post wasn't intended to be a "moan" but constructive criticism. I bit my tongue for a while because - as I said - it seemed churlish to criticise something people had worked so hard on.

But I do think the complete absence of any source citations is a major shortcoming, and I thought someone ought to point that out, even at the risk of making themselves unpopular.

[Chris]

What I wasn't able to do was attach references like they do in the standard Wiki as I don't know how to yet! Shame, as you are right, these things are important.

But it is early days and there needs to be more people working on this than SPR, Monty and me (with obviously too much time on his hands, LOL). Then I'm certain references will, and must, appear.

In the meantime, I'm just going to carry on putting the bare bones in (and learn how to do references). It's going to be a grower, I have no doubt.

Thanks. That's encouraging.

I had another question about the general concept. Another way in which I think this might be useful is if images and/or transcripts of various kinds of documents could be included, and linked from the relevant articles. This kind of material tends to be lost quite quickly when it's posted on the boards.

Perhaps I am over-sensitive to the possibility of wiki-vandalism, but for this kind of material it might be beneficial if the pages could be locked to prevent other users from editing the transcripts. Would that be feasible?

One other small point. At the moment there is a problem with the layout of the pages - as I'm seeing things, the banner ad and the link menu (article/discussion/edit/history) are being displayed on top of the first few lines of text.

[spryder]

Hi Chris -

Yes, pages can be locked by admin-level editors.

What browser and operating system are you using? I'll see if I can duplicate the problem you're having and then fix it once I can see what's happening exactly.

Thanks!

[Chris]

What browser and operating system are you using? I'll see if I can duplicate the problem you're having and then fix it once I can see what's happening exactly.

It's Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista (so I'm used to things not working properly).

Continuing the previous line of thought, would you think of eventually transferring the press reports section to the wiki, or at least having an additional newspaper section there? I have various press extracts (not a huge number) that aren't in the current press section, and I expect others have too. I can think of one other person who has a huge collection and has often posted scans on the boards ...

[spryder]

Thanks Chris - the IE7 layout bug should be fixed now. You may need to shift-refresh to pull in the new stylesheet. Thanks for catching that!

As for putting press reports in the wiki - if someone wants to take that on, by all means, please do. At this point I really have no policies whatsoever for the wiki - it will be shaped by those who get in there and make it happen. In the end, whatever works best will continue to work, and whatever doesn't will probably fall by the wayside - but for now, anything goes.

[Magpie]

Hi Spryder.

This is probably a silly question, but how does one edit the "wanted" page?

I'd like to add catagories for "Doctors" and perhaps "Coroners", or at least one catagory that covers all medical people connected with the case.

I'd start such pages for some of these guys myself, but I've never actually created a wiki page from scratch before. I'd happily contribute material to them if someone else could start the ball rolling though

[Monty]

Chris

I assume that was directed at least partly at me. If so, my post wasn't intended to be a "moan" but constructive criticism. I bit my tongue for a while because - as I said - it seemed churlish to criticise something people had worked so hard on.

But I do think the complete absence of any source citations is a major shortcoming, and I thought someone ought to point that out, even at the risk of making themselves unpopular.

Of course you are quite correct, I apologise.

I was in a tetchy mood yesterday and, having just gone through Wiki and seen the work John and Spry have put in (coupled with my own, insignificant in comparison, entry that I had created moments before I saw your post) I replied to what I thought was an ungrateful post.

However, I see that I read your post wrong and offer my sincere apologies. As I said, you points are valid and well meaning.

I would also like to add praise to the work John has done. He has laid a very fine base for us all to build on.

Monty

[Chris]

Of course you are quite correct, I apologise.

I was in a tetchy mood yesterday and, having just gone through Wiki and seen the work John and Spry have put in (coupled with my own, insignificant in comparison, entry that I had created moments before I saw your post) I replied to what I thought was an ungrateful post.

No apology necessary - as I said, it seemed churlish to me to raise the point, considering how much work had gone into the pages. I shall try to be an occasional contributor, but I regret that I won't have time to do much.