Wiki: Jack the Ripper

[Magpie]

I think it would be a great idea, with the safeguards already mentioned.

[Brenda]

Even though Wiki has a reputation for not being entirely factual, I still think it is an wonderful idea to have one for Jack the Ripper. I say this because whenever I want to research something or someone I know nothing about, I always pick the Wiki entry first. Even if some things aren't fact or are exaggerated facts, it is still an excellent resource for a quick all-around briefing on a subject. From there the user can decide whether they are interested enough to research further. It could be a great introduction to the World of Jack for the casual passer-by who is unsure if they are ready to invest the time required to digest the Casebook.

Just make sure every single link brings them to Casebook!

[John Bennett]

Stephen,

Had a brief look around and will start sometime after the weekend. I like this idea as it will erase some myths that run through the case like unwanted warts.

First on my list will be that bloody fire engine impersonation Eddowes was alledged to have done!

Get in there, Mr B!

This could turn out to be a great thing. Everybody has their own obsessions/specialities in this field - if it's moderated well ,collaboratively, I reckon it will be an exhaustive and somewhat addictive resource.

JB

[Monty]

Stephen,

Had a brief look around and will start sometime after the weekend. I like this idea as it will erase some myths that run through the case like unwanted warts.

First on my list will be that bloody fire engine impersonation Eddowes was alledged to have done!

[Celesta]

Stephen,

In my humble opinion it sounds like a good idea.

[spryder]

Thanks Monty! Sent you a PM just now with some info.

[Monty]

Stephen,

Sounds good. I think is worthy of doing, if you want someone you know where I am.

Monty

[spryder]

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

It will definitely not be a free-for-all atmosphere - only users who are vetted by the administrators will be allowed to add/edit content, though anyone can sign up for an account and participate in the "Talk" discussion pages attached to every content page to help make suggestions on what needs to be done, problems with current content, etc.

In the end though, the site will essentially be what the community makes of it. I will have no editorial control over it, or at least no more than any other approved admin-level user.

[Bailey]

I'm torn... I think if it were possible to keep it to actual facts - which would require a great deal of effort and diligence on the part of those in charge of moderating - it could be great. Perhaps articles and adjustments could be submitted and approved before publishing?

And perhaps, depending on how it's structured, there could be room for more theoretical articles, but clearly signposted as being such, and indications that they represent opinions and point of view rather than fact.

I'd love to put my hand up as someone willing to moderate, but time and possibly a shortage of serious knowledge would probably hamper me. However, that said, I'm fairly impartial on most things, and I'd be willing to at least help out now and then as opposed to taking on significant responsibility for the project.

B. (Wondering if I'll regret that last...)

[Monty]

I agree Chris....and that therefore rules me out.

They need to be trusted, open minded and knowledgable.

Guardians of the facts.

Monty

[Chris]

Another great idea however wiki is notoriously factually incorrect.

I assume this is why admin is required but what chance of dead horse floggin? Especially if someone is persistant in misleading under the belief they are correct.

I think this might work if it were limited to a small number of strictly vetted contributors, but not if it were a free-for-all, a la Wikipedia.

[Monty]

Stephen,

Another great idea however wiki is notoriously factually incorrect.

I assume this is why admin is required but what chance of dead horse floggin? Especially if someone is persistant in misleading under the belief they are correct.

Monty

[spryder]

Hi everyone -

The idea was raised about a year ago, to create a "Jack the Ripper Wiki" where the entire Ripperological community can participate in adding, editing and organizing the wealth of historical information surrounding the Ripper murders. For those who aren't familiar with wikis, its just a funny name for a web site that multiple users can continually add/edit/delete to and from without needing any technical knowledge or know-how - if you can post to a forum, you can add to or edit a wiki page.

I've put aside some time recently to develop this idea a bit at http://wiki.casebook.org.

Initially my plan is to copy over victim, suspect and witness pages from the main Casebook site directly into the wiki as a first step and feasibility experiment. I've already brought over the five canonical victim pages, and will continue to migrate content over the coming days. Users can then modify, add to and extend those pages in whatever directions they like, just like the main Wikipedia site.

The long-term plan for this site is yet to be determined, but the best-case scenario is that this will become an even larger, more robust and more continually-updated repository of Ripper-related information, run by multiple members of the community collaborating together.

Right now what I'd really love to get is one or more folks who are passionate about this idea and would like to help administrate the wiki. If you're interested, please email me or send me a private message, or just reply to this thread.

Cheers -

- Stephen