On 25/05/2011 09:48, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 24/05/2011 11:01, Charles Matthews wrote: >> Long shot, like trying to get paintball included in the Olympics. Not a >> bad idea to be talking to UNESCO, but who should be talking to whom >> about what? Some of the sister projects are more about "heritage", in fact > Like Commons? > You could say even more like Wikisource, which has the potential to post the classic literature of all cultures, and make it freely available.
But partly this is a way of thinking about what we do. Since I currently work mostly on historical biography, I'm conscious of bringing old biographical text together with images, making available material about figures who (for example) might be of interest to local historians. The point would be that our "mission" is actually to be systematic in doing that, while local or localised historians (family historians, religious historians concentrating on one church, historians of one institution or company, military historians with a narrow focus, garden historians, transport historians, cricket historians of the 18th century, etc., all well supported areas) impose some sort of cut-off in their interests. So from there we have to argue that Wikimedia projects are inclusive (by topic and language), well resourced, responsible (backed up and with transparent histories), and accessible to a significant fraction of the world's population, Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
