UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
Encyclopedic Ambitions
- LATEST COMMENTS
- Oops, on reflection -- US 26 crosses the Deschutes near Madras ... - Pete Forsyth
- Another disclosure: Esprqii has recently written a fine blog post ... - Pete Forsyth
- Thanks to you and everyone for the excellent feedback. You ... - Pete Forsyth
The Oregon Encyclopedia launched on Valentine's Day, 2008 with grand dreams. It was to be, its creators wrote, "a comprehensive and authoritative compendium of information about Oregon's history and culture." The initial plan was to write as many as 3,000 articles about the people, places, and events that have made (and continue to make) this state what it is — with a special effort to include the voices of those who often don't make the historical cut. A year and a bit later, the Encyclopedia's rigorous editorial process and a lack of resources has tempered those early plans. There are 250 articles up right now, and they hope to have 500-750 online by September. A printed volume may follow in 2010.
Any encyclopedia that launched in the late 2000s was inevitably going to draw comparisons to Wikipedia, and this was no exception. The models of the two projects are, in fact, strikingly different.
Wikipedia is based on continual, communal, transparent editing — information as conversation. It doesn't make claims for authoritative content, but instead emphasizes an asymptotic approach to accuracy.
The Oregon Encyclopedia does invite many forms of community participation, but it hearkens back to an almost 19th century ideal of truth: "All entries are written by knowledgeable authors, reviewed by experts, and meticulously checked to ensure accuracy."
There's also a very different scale of "finished" work. A many-year head-start and a less institutionally rigorous editorial structure means that a very active statewide Wikipedia community — called WikiProject Oregon — has already collaborated on over 5,000 Oregon-related articles. (One starting point: the Oregon portal. If you're feeling meta, you can even read the Wikipedia entry about the Oregon Encyclopedia.)
For all of these differences, the people behind both projects are laborers of love: passionate about history, engaged in their communities, and working largely for free. What might these two groups of encyclopedists learn from each other?
What reference works do you turn to when you need to learn about the world around you? How do you use them? What's been left out of previous history books? What events, or people, or places deserve a brighter historical spotlight?
GUESTS:
- William Lang: Professor of History at Portland State University and one of three editors-in-chief of the Oregon Encyclopedia
- Pete Forsyth: Blogger, online community thinker, and a prominent member of WikiProject Oregon
- Elaine Rohse: Freelance writer and past president of the Yamhill County Historical Society
Tagged as: history · oregon at 150
Photo credit: Stewart / Flickr / Creative Commons
COMMENTS: (29 total)
-
Looking forward to the show. I think a better introduction to our work at WikiProject Oregon is our blog, rather than our collaboration space (though of course, you're welcome to check out both!)
wikiprojectoregon.wordpress.com
And TSB, thanks for the kind words!
-
Do the editors of the Oregon Encyclopedia Project know that their
model for building an online encyclopedia has been tried in the past?
Before founding Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales started Nupedia, which was
written by experts and underwent a rigorous peer review just like the
OEP. Nupedia was eventually abandoned in favor of Wikipedia because its process was far too slow to create a useful body of work. -
I'm relatively ignorant of the history of encyclopedias, but isn't the model you're describing as too slow — writing by experts then some form of peer review — essentially the one that was used by most encyclopedias before Wikipedia?
David Miller — Thu May 7th 3:43p.m.
-
For easy reference for those out of state, etc. - here's a link to the audio stream:
http://www.opb.org/programs/streams/
-
This is a great topic. (Disclosure: I'm in the WikiProject Oregon community with Pete.) Both encyclopedias are incredibly valuable but take a different approach to information. The "traditional" model of the OE, using experts and peer reviews, puts a priority on depth; go deep with a lot of articles first, then spread out broadly. Meanwhile, Wikipedia starts with breadth; start a lot of articles, then go deep on them as possible.
So there is a place for both of them. I use the Oregon Encyclopedia as a reference (or at least a reference to where to find primary and secondary sources) for Wikipedia articles all the time. It would be great if the OE could take some of the existing Wikipedia Oregon articles that have been started, have had resources uncovered, and "go deep" with them.
-
Another disclosure: Esprqii has recently written a fine blog post about how he got started editing Wikipedia -- which I think makes a great read for those getting familiar with the project.
-
On the Deschutes River there is what looks to be a hand made sign on the trail on the east bank of the river north of hwy 26 and Warm Springs. The sign explains that at that spot a military expedition was camped in the mid 1800s and a slave who was with the outfit was killed in a brawl with one of the soldiers. I have always wanted to know more about this story and how the sign came to be.
-
I posted this question on the Wikipedia Deschutes River discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deschutes_River_(Oregon)
Maybe someone can find something!
-
That's such a fantastic question, because it reflects the kind of inquisitive spirit that compelled many of us to edit Wikipedia to begin with. If you have (or could get) a photo of the sign, that would be a great way to get some discussion going about its subject.
I think I may have read somewhere about the brawl you mentioned. I can't help but wonder whether it was the Stephen Meek expedition's party that is referred to in the party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meek_Cutoff
Also, we've been building a "reference desk" -- links to valuable resources about Oregon available online and elsewhere -- that might help you research this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ORE/RD
-
Oops, on reflection -- US 26 crosses the Deschutes near Madras, far south of where the Stephen Meek expedition crossed it. So scratch that speculation.
-
An interesting immediate division between Lang and Forsyth: Lang's insistence on the importance of the singular voice and Forsyth's emphasis on collective authorship.
David Miller — Fri May 8th 9:21a.m.
-
How does either model handle honest disagreements as to facts or stories that cannot be independently verified?
-
With Wikipedia, if a fact cannot be independently verified, by policy, it should not be included. Enforcement of that policy is an ongoing process, so there are certainly plenty of examples out there; but the higher-rated content on Wikipedia should not have this issue.
In the case of more subjective editorial conundra, it varies so much case-by-case that it's tough to answer here; but the short answer is, in the areas where there's an active and robust community of editors, we tend to arrive at good, well-considered decisions fairly quickly. In more neglected areas, not so much.
By and large, the Oregon community of editors is one of the strongest on the English Wikipedia. But we're trying to share the love, too :)
-
My WIkipedia experience with Oregon was creating the "Paisley Caves" article. I live in Massachusetts, and I happened to notice a news item about the discovery of pre-Clovis coprilites in one of the Paisley Caves in Oregon. I found nothing in Wikipedia, so I did just as Pete suggests: went to a "talk" page (might even have been somewhere on the Oregon Portal page, I can't remember) and was encouraged to simply start an article myself!
"But" - I demurred - "I really don't know anything about this..." and I was encouraged to just put up the little I had noted in the news, complete with some of the references associated with the news article. I did this, and spent the next several weeks enjoying how the little article grew and improved - the first edits came in within a half-hour of my posting the article!
I really enjoy this quick-response aspect of Wikipedia: you can start something up (presumably you'll do at least a little checking into sources!), with the confidence that other people will check it out and improve/correct it.
-
I think there is a huge advantage of putting resources into wikipedia the currently known entity with, now, huge recognition. I work with high school students and wikipedia is usually the first source they check when doing research. I wish Oregon Encyclopedia would put our resources towards adding to articles about Oregon on wikipedia where they will likely be read and found much more by students (and all of us).
-
I like the idea of both. The more sources of information the better.
Howard Zinn and Thom Hartmann have both written about things in history that were left out of official histories.
Mainstream historians don't like Zinn because they say he cherry picks the things he wants to write about, but that argument can be turned back around on the mainstream folks in that they have cherry picked and left out the Zinn things (hmm, zen things?).
I think it is beneficial to read the standard versions and then wander around and take a look at versions that differ so that you get a more full idea of it all.
-
I wonder how much has been discussed or covered in terms of Oregon's fascinating, disturbing and largely ignored history of racism, racial discrimination, racist policy/legislation, and racially motived crimes etc. I was reminded of this because of the way that chu(?)'s observation about the sign on the Deschutte's River was handled as a topic about hand-made signs when there could be a far more significant discussion about Oregon's history of race and violence.
Thanks!
-
Absolutely agree. Rather than talk about how the sign could touch on the history of slavery and how it related to Oregon history the guest spoke of whether the sign would be considered "significant".
I will take a picture and send it on next time I'm down there. It is a very handsome sign that someone obviously took care in producing.
-
I'd check out the history departments of our Universities, as I am sure your questions have been addressed. Your local reference librarians too, those folks are awesome.
-
We currently have published entries on the Oregon Encyclopedia related to our history of race relations (Adams High School, George Aguilar, Day of Remembrance, 14th Amendment, Indian Boarding Schools, Klu Klux Klan, etc., etc.); we also have many more entries that are in-process.
-
Agreed, an excellent topic, and one that we've struggled to figure out how to approach best on Wikipedia. A few relevant articles:
and a brief "Rade relations" section in the History of Oregon article.
-
I am a native Oregonian, 50 years.
Tom McCall is credited with endorsing and passing the law that kept the Oregon Coast public and open to citizens.
However, had Oswald West, Oregon's 14th governor, not passed the beach highway law that protected our coastlines, the beaches would have been well established as private estates before McCall's time. West's legacy seems to be overlooked, even credited to McCall. Oswald West Park, south of Cannon beach is a reminder. GO THERE!
-
OPB has done and shown a documentary about West and his work to protect our beaches. Maybe it's time to rerun that.
-
I think this is an area we've actually covered fairly well on Wikipedia -- obviously there's room for improvement, but take a look at these articles:
-
I would welcome a third option that consists just of stories told by Oregonians about their own and their ancestors lives and experiences. I wouldn't edit or fact-check this version, I would just enjoy the stories. I'd expect a lot of fairly uninteresting stories that are actually interesting in what they reveal about the writers thinking, along with some that are gripping and/or humorous.
I have no idea of how it would be organized, just that people feel better when they are able to tell their own story and have it available to be read or listened to.
-
Very important, timely, meaningful topic. Thank you. Interesting, informed guests. Excellent questions, Emily and excellent answers. These are two different approaches, each perfectly valid and valuable, each highly useful, in documenting, and interpreting Oregon history. (Yes, no matter many hands in the writing/editing or just one writer with an editor, it is still all about interpretation.) I will say this, that the Oreg. Encyclopedia Project, as each entry will have one author/writer with his or her unique style, will likely convey more of a sense of "story" in conveying the details, unlike the Wiki approach.
Here is yet another model, offered by the Oreg. Historical Society. Some very useful on-line historical and biographical details there as well:
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/timeweb/
(This poster has no formal relationship with the OHS. Not on staff. But the OHS and its resources, not just brick and mortar, is sometimes an overlooked institution. All controversies aside...)
-
I would say the OHS is an overlooked institution because with the tight grip it places on its resources, it projects an air of inaccessibility.
-
Thanks to you and everyone for the excellent feedback. You're absolutely right that there's a place for both; we at Wikipedia value the Oregon Encyclopedia tremendously, as it's become a wonderful, reliable source for information that can be difficult to track down elsewhere.
It's fantastic to be able to cite the Oregon Encyclopedia and the sources it leads us to. A further step is that it would be great to add historic photographs etc. to our articles; unfortunately, older institutions like the OHS tend to place their own copyright protections on older public domain documents, making that in many cases a legal impossibility. (Fortunately, modern archiving projects like Google Books are more compatible with our legal needs.)
-
The WikiProject Oregon is a very successful example inspiring many Wikipedia volunteers from all around the globe. For instance, I'm Brazilian and the Wikimedia Foundation staff told me that the WikiProject Oregon is a "must see" initiative coordinated by Pete Forsyth and other volunteers.