How to make Ripperology better?

[Ally]

So I have been reading over all the responses, and mulling them and formulating a reply. However I am having some difficulty because my brain works by comparison and analogy and it's kind of hard to make comparisons or draw analogies without seeming like you are attacking how other people do things when there is the appearance of competition between two entities, whether it is real or merely perceived. So I just want to state at the outset, no ill will is intended towards any other party, though it may appear that way, and there's really nothing I can do to avoid that.

On the subject of closed/private boards, I do to a large part agree it's not a good idea. Recently, elsewhere, a contentious thread was removed to a private "members only" section and I asked one of that places participants what the purpose of that was. Their response was something along the lines of "probably so as not to scare off newcomers with the fear of being called a ****". Whether this was in fact the reason, I don't know but my response was, "what so we lure them in with candy and sweet, sweet lies and once they are suckered in, rip off the veil to expose the rot beneath"?? My point is that, the goal isn't to actually make things better, just to make them look better to outside view? And I am not bagging on that other place, I am simply thinking about what standards to apply here.

Of course there is a slight difference in that, we are discussing privatizing what we would hope to be the best of the field, not the worst, which is kind of ivory tower thinking, and probably not workable either. People claim they want elevated standards, but in reality I am not sure they do. If a contentious poster that everyone deplores as dragging down the field is banned from Board A, the argument merely follows them to Board B and they drag down the field there. People can choose to rise above the fray, but I think most of us, myself included, are just too seduced by the fray to bother. We can change the structure of the boards all we want, it's not going to change the people.

So possibly as Chris suggests the idea is to take the research and put it into the Wiki, where the research stands alone, untainted. Then allow the discussion to continue unfettered here, in the muck with the rowdy masses. I do think a link/thread on the boards should be made whenever something new is added to the Wiki, so people know what's being added. Right now the two entities exist in isolation from one another. I think there needs to be more promotion. There is a board devoted strictly to research that has higher standards for posting under General Discussion, but not many people take advantage of it. Maybe that should be the Wiki depository. Anyway just the ramblings of my slightly hungover and sleep deprived brain.

PS.. Editing to add, WHAT HE SAID, above, since we cross-posted. LOL

[DGB]

Wiki

As has been previously mentioned on the thread, if the wiki was used correctly it would negate the need for separate forum. The wiki would become the repository for research, old and new, and the forums would be a place for discussion of that research.

This would mean that information is easy to find and can be edited by informed persons to ensure that personal arguments do not muddy the waters.

It would also ensure that the real research can be contributed to by new authors or new students of the case, not just those who are previously published or who are acceptable to the powers-that-be. I don't believe in any cabal or cartel (does anyone really?) it is a figment of the imagination of people who don't like their ridiculous theories being questioned. However, the idea of an elite group selecting who is or isn't worthy of providing research, is something that fills me - someone who has never published - with dread.

Unfortunately I believe there will always be people in the field who want to gain attention, not through quiet, insightful research - nor by publishing monumental, overarching tomes which give a complete background on the case - but by expounding unrealistic and unbelievable theories which, when questioned, they respond with insult and accusation. If an elitist forum is introduced, these people will not go away, but will continue to post in the only place available to them: entry-level, cattle class alongside the new students to the field. If that doesn't put off the new blood I don't know what will.

[Ally]

There is one small revision to Casebook I would love to see implemented, and that involves the Press Reports Search feature.

When looking for a personal name in the Press Search, I want to see ONLY the results from Newspapers NOT, ongoing threads, and NOT Dissertations, NOT related pages, JUST the Press Reports.

Very, in fact extremely, annoying!

Pretty please!

Hey can you tell me what you mean? I just did a search with press reports feature using "Kelly" and "Watson" I figured those would bring up board discussions, but the only thing that showed were press reports. Can you tell me what name you searched that produced inaccurate results?

[Wickerman]

There is one small revision to Casebook I would love to see implemented, and that involves the Press Reports Search feature.

When looking for a personal name in the Press Search, I want to see ONLY the results from Newspapers NOT, ongoing threads, and NOT Dissertations, NOT related pages, JUST the Press Reports.

Very, in fact extremely, annoying!

Pretty please!

[bolo]

Hi Ally, all,

I wouldn't dream of calling myself a researcher, I'm just an average guy interested in the Ripper case who likes to discuss his views with like-minded people, even though it's kinda difficult to actually become part of a discussion, probably because the stuff I write is too 'casual' for those who know the case and its many details like the back of their hand, but that's my personal problem I guess.

Anyway, I think it would be wrong to introduce sub-forums closed to the general public or install new and more strict rules for posting. I've been a member of other discussion forums where such measures (specially the closed sub-forum thing) had been introduced and in most cases, they withered and died off in less than a year. Most of the time, it's not the influx of a loud-mouthed and clueless plebs which makes high-profile information exchange difficult but ego massaging and dogmatism, and that's something you can't regulate by technical means or new rulesets, at least not effectively.

Just my tuppence.

Regards,

Boris

[Chris]

I am in favor of sections devoted to the results of serious research. A kind of repository, for reference. All too often someone comes up with a real gem, or a potential gem, but you try to find it 18 months later.

The Wiki section of Casebook should be ideal for this purpose, but for it to work either people need to get into the habit of putting new information into the Wiki as well as posting it to the boards, or else there need to be some volunteers willing to copy new information from the boards (and elsewhere) into the Wiki.

[martin wilson]

I think it might be useful to know where posters are coming from regarding the case, nobody need post information gleaned through hard work or some expense, and opinions change, but it might be interesting to know their take on the case as a reference for new posters.
Obviously it would not be a discussion thread, just 'here's what I think' and inevitably would involve purely speculative opinion.

[Phil H]

Ripperologists today seem like mostly historians by methodology, and while I respect this, the answers aren't out there in some archive. Every once in a while a passing social scientist takes a Tabram-like stab at the question, but always on the basis of a simplified understanding of the case.

On the contrary, a social scientist or a criminologist may have useful insights, but it IS in the archive and by using the established historical methods that any proposed solutions will be shown to be accurate.

I think the evident answer to the question posed is that no action should or needs to be taken:

Fair enough

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Correction

Three words: Statistical Social Science

We need a quant-focused criminologist who actually understands the case to use big data to shed light on major questions relevant to the case. We could, for example, calculate the chance that a killer would change MO the way the killings changed from Chapman to Stride to Eddowes to Kelly, test whether the old assertion of "facial multilations = the killer knew the victim" actually holds up over a large data set, etc.

Ripperologists today seem like mostly historians by methodology, and while I respect this, the answers aren't out there in some archive. Every once in a while a passing social scientist takes a Tabram-like stab at the question, but always on the basis of a simplified understanding of the case.

What that guy said too. Yeah.

[Magpie]

The cartel has all this in hand,

Don't worry about it.

Monty

The cartel? Dammit I wrote "cabal" on my calender.

You're sure it's not the cabal? It'll make a difference when I call the caterers.

[Damaso Marte]

Three words: Statistical Social Science

We need a quant-focused criminologist who actually understands the case to use big data to shed light on major questions relevant to the case. We could, for example, calculate the chance that a killer would change MO the way the killings changed from Chapman to Stride to Eddowes to Kelly, test whether the old assertion of "facial multilations = the killer knew the victim" actually holds up over a large data set, etc.

Ripperologists today seem like mostly historians by methodology, and while I respect this, the answers aren't out there in some archive. Every once in a while a passing social scientist takes a Tabram-like stab at the question, but always on the basis of a simplified understanding of the case.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Read the post above me.

Wickerman. On point. No need to say anything else.

[Wickerman]

Since everyone is talking about the deplorable state and shaking their heads, let's hear it.

The deplorable state of Ripperology is not going to be fixed by Casebook.

And, I'm not in favor of enforcing stringent rules to curb free thinking, and/or the exchanging of ideas.
I am in favor of sections devoted to the results of serious research. A kind of repository, for reference. All too often someone comes up with a real gem, or a potential gem, but you try to find it 18 months later.

How precisely can the field of Ripperology be made better. Other than killing off those we don't like, including me:

There's people you don't like?

No-one should be excluded, if that is what you're getting at.

There's NO-ONE on this site that I don't like, just in case you were wondering.
There are a few that amuse me to no end, but when the entertainment is free, why complain?

The deplorable state of Ripperology is the result of attitude, and you can't fix that. We have lost some of the best, most informed, and most helpful members (Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, etc.) often due to boneheads hounding them with ridiculous arguments.

What would you do? And specifically How to make Casebook better?

I wouldn't worry about there being anything wrong with Casebook.
Implementing changes to control members could backfire and kill the interaction on Casebook altogether. I've seen this happen on other forums.
Creating sections for reference, along the lines of the Press Section, would interest me.

How to make it a more cooperative, shared effort and less dog-eat-dog?

This might be corny, but the more people learn about a subject the more appreciation they might have for that subject.

A couple of examples, there seems to be a great under appreciation for the police, for their methods, how they operated, the breadth & depth of a murder investigation.
If members could learn more about the police they might be less inclined to offer ludicrous suggestions as to what they 'believe' the police would or would not have done.

Likewise, the press.
The Newspaper is such a fundamental contribution to our knowledge of the crimes, and yet we must never forget, nothing published in any newspaper constitutes proof of anything. Newspapers provide opinion, if we choose to think some detail they publish is fact, it must be proven by outside sources.
I don't know how you can fix this, again, it's a matter of education.

[Nemo]

Ally's correct IMO that any advance would require both open and closed threads on the same subject matter (if that was what you were proposing Ally)

Allowing posters such as Stewart Evans, Paul Begg etc to post to a thread where they don't feel obliged to answer other posters or be subjected to inane comments can only encourage their contributions I think

Their learned views would be more easily available to readers in pure form on such threads and won't be diluted by a flurry of often irrelevant posts

Such threads could run in tandem with a public thread available for general comment

Of course, this would only work for a minority of threads and contributions by such authors, as posts to CB generally require and encourage participation by others

I also think group efforts into research form naturally and don't lend themselves to prior organisation

Perhaps threads with only factual contributions with little or no comment?

For example, it has recently been suggested to form a timeline for a certain character within the JtR case. That is the sort of useful thread that only requires factual input by a collective and would be well received by the general readers I think

Regards

Nemo

[lynn cates]

hope

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Hope springs eternal.

Cheers.
LC