Wiki: Jack the Ripper

[Monty]

I must say my initial misgivings have evaporated (unless there is a sudden influx of "wiki-vandals"), and I think the project will be very useful indeed. I shall continue to decant some of my notes into the wiki format (slowly).

I wonder if some potential contributors are put off by the technicalities of editing the pages. If so, I'm sure help and advice will be forthcoming. And once you're used to it, it's really not much more difficult than formatting posts on the message boards.

Infact, it becomes addictive and, in a sense, educational.

Well, thats what Ive found.

Monty

[Chris]

Putting the references in makes a big difference, I must say.

Like Monty says, most of my locations stuff has been embedded in my brain for over 20 years, so it's not always easy to 'come up with the proof', as they say.

But it will come. This project is real grower.

MORE CONTRIBUTORS WANTED!! Sensible ones, mind

I must say my initial misgivings have evaporated (unless there is a sudden influx of "wiki-vandals"), and I think the project will be very useful indeed. I shall continue to decant some of my notes into the wiki format (slowly).

I wonder if some potential contributors are put off by the technicalities of editing the pages. If so, I'm sure help and advice will be forthcoming. And once you're used to it, it's really not much more difficult than formatting posts on the message boards.

[John Bennett]

Putting the references in makes a big difference, I must say.

Like Monty says, most of my locations stuff has been embedded in my brain for over 20 years, so it's not always easy to 'come up with the proof', as they say.

But it will come. This project is real grower.

MORE CONTRIBUTORS WANTED!! Sensible ones, mind

[Chris]

I'm afraid my contributions, such as they are, are going to be done at a snail's pace.

[Monty]

Thanks Stephen and Chris,

it seems to be working now. Unfortunately, I guess I have to go back over the entries I made and try to remember where the sources came from!

Large black coffee and a pro-plus please.....

Know what you mean....half of it has been collected and stored in my head for a period of 24 years.

I need a Vulcan mind melt !!

Monty


PS I shall go over my entries at the weekend and cite the sources, when I have time...if thats ok.

[John Bennett]

Just a quick note to all wiki editors - I've installed tonight the "Cite" extension, thanks to a recommendation by Chris. This allows the inclusion of citations/footnotes within any wiki article.

Thanks Stephen and Chris,

it seems to be working now. Unfortunately, I guess I have to go back over the entries I made and try to remember where the sources came from!

Large black coffee and a pro-plus please.....

[Chris]

Just a quick note to all wiki editors - I've installed tonight the "Cite" extension, thanks to a recommendation by Chris. This allows the inclusion of citations/footnotes within any wiki article.

If you want to get an idea of how to do citation formatting, you can see the one Chris has set up at:

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Harry_Harris

Thanks. I'm glad it wasn't me.

The formatting is actually very simple - the hardest part was finding the instructions in the help pages, which are here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes

[spryder]

Just a quick note to all wiki editors - I've installed tonight the "Cite" extension, thanks to a recommendation by Chris. This allows the inclusion of citations/footnotes within any wiki article.

If you want to get an idea of how to do citation formatting, you can see the one Chris has set up at:

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Harry_Harris

Cheers

- Stephen

[johns]

I wrote the initial William Bury article on Wikipedia some time back, but if anyone wants to steam in and edit it - feel free.

John

[Pippin Joan]

What a wonderful project! I come here often to learn from those who know. There are so many people who can contribute from years of study. To cooperate on a central body of knowledge is a gift to all of us.

[spryder]

Could I sound out opinion on the best way of approaching the correction of errors? Where is the best place for that - the wiki's own discussion section, or the Casebook forum? If the former, is there a danger that two parallel discussion forums will develop?

Hi Chris -

The wiki provides a "Talk" tab at the top of every page, that's generally the place where wiki-specific discussions for that page (what should be included, A or B, what do you think of ???, etc.) should take place.

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

Hi Magpie -

The Wanted Page is automatically generated. When you "wikify" a page (i.e. you create links on all the names/places/keywords that should have their own pages), the system will automatically read those links and will add any of them which don't yet have a page associated with them to the "Wanted Page."

Cheers!

[Chris]

Could I sound out opinion on the best way of approaching the correction of errors?

One small thing that caught my eye on the Stride page was that Israel Schwartz's sighting was timed at "12:40 AM (approximately)". I think the time should be 12.45, but perhaps there's some reason for 12.40 I don't know about, so maybe it would be a good idea to discuss it rather than just changing it. Where is the best place for that - the wiki's own discussion section, or the Casebook forum? If the former, is there a danger that two parallel discussion forums will develop?

[John Bennett]

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.

Oh, a terrible omission - Chris Scott's 'Cast of Thousands' too. And various casebook essays.

[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.

[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