Archaepedia

[Sniffer]

The Recceology Group are launching the Archaepedia in September 2006.

This is an online encyclopaedia to which members of the project contribute. Based on the famous Wikipedia (and using the same software), it is different in two fundamental respects:

Firstly, it provides greater focus on the subject matter – embracing not only the practices of archaeology, but techniques, science and overviews of history.

Secondly, this is more ‘demand-driven’ with scope for those in education to say what they feel they need more information about.

This education element is very important. With a substantial increase in the interest shown in the subject over the past ten years in the UK alone (thanks to popularisation through the medium of television), there is a thirst for knowledge that falls into a dead space - too great a thirst for the brief glimpse given by conventional media, and insufficient a thirst to enrol on a major education course immediately.

It’s that dead space that Archaepedia intents to occupy.

But what do people contributing get out of it?

Well, there are two real benefits. Firstly, there’s that commitment to educate which is not only becoming a feature of professional standards and codes of practice, but is also part of the fire which fuels the passionate archaeological person. It is hoped that the project will become a demonstration of that commitment.

Secondly, there’s a networking side. Over the next few months, it’s intended that we draw in more contributors from the English-writing world outside the UK. That will bring more interaction and propagation of ideas. Archaeology is a very social world in many ways, and this will enhance and reinforce that perception.

Currently, the Help files, tutorials and other documentation are being written and testing is being carried out. Registration details are being accepted already, and the associated site - including the Diggers’ Bar – is also nearly ready to accept the new members.

Membership is free. This is a voluntary project which has been mildly sponsored by the Recceology Group and it doesn’t carry advertising, fees or the onward selling of member details.

If there are any queries, you can write to mailto:admin@recceology.com

There’s a pre-launch registration link at http://www.recceology.com/L10Apps/register.htm


Thanks to the kind BAJR Host for letting me mention this in this sett!

[BAJR Host]

Looks fascinating and a real useful tool... so was glad to say yes to advertising on BAJR... but it was also good of you to ask as well. Thats how it should be

Anyway.... look forward to the full launch

Another day another WSI?

[Sniffer]

My crawling is virtually limitless..

We've been looking at some of the useful features that we can establish as suggested in a few places.

When we manage to get the contribution rate up to a reasonable level after launch, we'll probably institute an RSS feed for updates (though that's likely to be very selective as nobody wants hot news about some spelling mistakes being corrected...!).

The attached forum is anticipated as featuring a routine 'Conspiracy theory' section for people to throw their ideas into the pot about matters archaeological, as well as the request show - where those in education and the like can publish their 'wants' lists.

The scheduled launch date is the 25 September - and I'm pleased that people have been signing up already!

[tom wilson]

Will there be any kind of peer review and if so, how will that work, particularly if (like wikipedia's prototype) it takes off really quickly?

If there isn't any peer review, will I be able to promote my theory that the Romanisation of Britain was all due to giant blood-drinking lizards from space?


I can see strengths and weaknesses in both models.

[Oxbeast]

I'd edit your rubbish for you Tom. Any time.

Quality idea, espcially for those students trying to work with theory. You could link to web based examples. Linking to the ADS would be a good idea as well...

On the lizard theme, I once visited a monastery site where extensive David Icke quotations had been graffitied everywhere, presumably by nutters.

[Sparky]

Thats not very open minded of you, Oxbeast.

[tom wilson]

Sparky's right Oxbeast.
The idea that it was 'nutters' who wrote incomprehensible drivel all over a historic monument is wild speculation on your part. Did you have the inscriptions dated? They could just as easily be further evidence of the giant blood-drinking lizardine influence on monasticism in medieval Britain.

Wandering back on topic, my principal concerns are related to accuracy and opinion. While the moderators can remove anything hateful, will they really have time to check the details of every entry ? People make mistakes, and making entries on Wikkipedia is something people commonly do when they are tired and should really be going to bed. The opinion aspect is usually more obvious and shouldn't be as much of a problem, but it would be helpful to have entries explicitly flagged up by paradyme as well as by subject:
a structural marxist approach to medieval manour houses
kingship in Cambodia from an ecological perspective
Late Classical Greece: developments in post-giant blood-drinking lizardist theory
etc.

Just a thought. Everyone having to decide what to call themselves might be considered a weakness though. An alternative would be to state the contributer's credentials.

[Curator Kid]

Maybe Oxbeast saw someone in a turquoise shellsuit holding a can of spray paint running away from the site? [xx(]

[Sniffer]

A fair few points to deal with.

Firstly, there is a peer review system, in that each item is open to re-edit and such. The Admin team are there to resolve technical flaws, clashes of personality (as opposed to opinion) and outright vandalism. For the clashes of the archaeological titans (should that be tight 'uns, as most people seem to hit the site after the pubs close?), there's a dispute resolution system in place. Patent nonsense can be reported as such and removed at the discretion of the admin panel - if it later proves to be valid (and I have my suspicions about the scaley nature of my great aunt, for one), reinstatement is also possible. The emphasis is going to be on the 'demand-driven' part and we hope to get people from all levels of education involved, for example, to let us know what material they want for their students. With such a large TV audience - getting material together for the subjects they're going to become aware of is also of interest.

One idea mooted was the 'reviewed' sticker. We're working on a coherent plan for that, along with flagging articles by 'consumer level' - i.e. School, University, post-Grad, idiots guide, and such.

As for your favourite... minority.. theories? There's also a place for those. The Conspiracy and Theory forum. Now, that was no asp-bite, was it? It was a fifth-columnist...

[Sniffer]

A brief note to say that everyone that has registered so far should have their logins by now. Thanks to everyone showing interest!