Virginia’s Online Encyclopedia Sneak Peak is Reserved for Law Makers

It’s true. All in all, it’s supposed to take over a DECADE to finish this behemoth and I applaud the editors for their hard work.

What am I talking about [link]?

The encyclopedia is a massive project of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Four employees in Charlottesville are laboring to create the online reference, with most articles written by experts at colleges and universities. It follows a nationwide trend in online state encyclopedias, which counters the massive popularity of Wikipedia, the general online encyclopedia that is not always reliable or authoritative….

Middle school teachers will get to test driveâ the online Encyclopedia Virginia this summer, but the general public [i.e. the tax payers] may not see it until 2009…The General Assembly will get a sneak peek in February, Gibson said, so they can see what the state’s money is going toward.”…The entire reference is expected to take more than a decade.

There is a small preview here.

I’m not gonna lie… I’m a little worried about historical societies, especially after the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society decided that the former “Hysterical Society” blog was “tasteless.” [read more]

Ok, people, maybe the whole history light needs to be re-addressed in a more constructive light. Monticello is having problems, local historian bloggers are branded as “tasteless,” the Virginia Encyclopedia is behind closed doors. Why all of these problems?

HISTORY IS COOL!

If you are involved in a historic society, why are you so closed and old fashioned about things? Don’t you want people to hear the snarky history stories, don’t you want them to debate your version of Virginia history and don’t you want to find new ways to reach new audiences? I understand that Wikipedia has its problems, but if you have four people working fulltime for over 10 years, couldn’t you do a pretty good job with an open encyclopedia model?

I’d love to hear from the society about why they didn’t go the wiki way with their history books. Does anyone know someone there?

Popularity: 12% [?]

Tagged as: , , , , , , , ,

26 Responses to “Virginia’s Online Encyclopedia Sneak Peak is Reserved for Law Makers”

  1. 09 Jan 2008 at 5:06 pmThor said:

    oo, forgot to spellcheck.. fixed now

  2. 09 Jan 2008 at 5:11 pmshenanigans said:

    History is soooo, like 5 years ago.

  3. 09 Jan 2008 at 5:16 pmbelmont yo said:

    I thought it was news and gossip, not history and gossip…

    /carp

  4. 09 Jan 2008 at 5:41 pmobadiah spittle said:

    The news and gossip of today is the history of tomorrow…

  5. 09 Jan 2008 at 5:45 pmshenanigans said:

    oh SNAP!

  6. 09 Jan 2008 at 6:17 pmbelmont yo said:

    obadiah spittle so the news of history and gossip of today is the history of tomorrow which we’re gossiping about now so we can make history later… right?

    /feels like he’s taking the SAT…. melon ball : bike seat = old strawberry : __________

  7. 09 Jan 2008 at 6:18 pmbelmont yo said:

    damn second tag error today… my bad.

  8. 09 Jan 2008 at 6:25 pmFloozy said:

    :Elephant’s scrotum

  9. 09 Jan 2008 at 6:34 pmbelmont yo said:

    Dang, what did you get, like a 1480?

  10. 09 Jan 2008 at 6:37 pmEthan said:

    I read that google is going to release its own sort of wikipedia type thing where the writers actually get credited. That’s sort of a happy medium between the VFH method which decries wikipedia’s lack of authority and, well, wikipedia’s lack of authority. There are a lot of well-educated people that write for wikipedia and false information and malicious alterations are changed almost immediately. But since you still don’t know who is writing and what their qualifications are, it can’t be seen as an academically reliable source, even though, in actuality, it is mostly reliable.

    I myself work in the digital humanities field and the “old school” types do sometimes seem unnecessarily combative to new ideas and new modes of the dissemination of information.

  11. 09 Jan 2008 at 9:47 pmhappyhooker said:

    i totally just quit my job. i know, i know, this has nothing to do with anything, but i thought i’d put it out there………….

  12. 09 Jan 2008 at 9:49 pmparlie said:

    i read somewhere that websites hire people.

  13. 09 Jan 2008 at 10:25 pmFloozy said:

    WTF HH…. why???? Do you have something else?

  14. 09 Jan 2008 at 11:28 pmshenanigans said:

    HH: Did you get sick of Mas? Went there tonight and it sucked!

  15. 10 Jan 2008 at 8:03 amoy said:

    Is HH CM?

    (ei ei o)

  16. 10 Jan 2008 at 8:15 amparlie said:

    i think hh is cm.

  17. 10 Jan 2008 at 8:36 amFloozy said:

    Thtop… thou art thpoiling things by outing one of uth.

  18. 10 Jan 2008 at 8:37 amFloozy said:

    LILITH…THEY ARE BEING BAD

  19. 10 Jan 2008 at 8:41 amcaroline said:

    good morning loves!

  20. 10 Jan 2008 at 9:11 amoy said:

    shaddup - if I want the world to know that Happyhooker is really Claude Monet, there’s nothing you can do about it!

  21. 10 Jan 2008 at 9:16 amhappyhooker said:

    nope, i’m not CM,and no,i don’t REALLY have anything else lined up. though i do have some promising leads. i just could not take it anymore. THE STRESS IS KILLING ME!!!!

  22. 10 Jan 2008 at 9:21 amSilmo Syrup said:

    Weel good for HH. Now you no excuse not to come to the Caroline gathering on Saturday. And that goes for you too Oy. (Check your dang e-mail everyone)

  23. 10 Jan 2008 at 9:28 ammaiaoming said:

    The VFH is notoriously behind the times. I know Wikipedia can have its issues, but let’s face it, even “legitimate” authors/historians have debates among themselves/ with others about the legitimacy of their facts, claims, and perspectives - allowing debate seems more healthy than the old-school, top-down approach of “authoritative” dictatorial information…

    Ten years? Really? So, by then, it’s going to be even MORE outmoded…!!! EYE ROLL.

  24. 10 Jan 2008 at 9:36 amoy said:

    when/where on saturday?

  25. 10 Jan 2008 at 10:23 amSilmo Syrup said:

    e-mail silmosyrup on gmail

  26. […] Monticello and the Virginia Encyclopedia: Are they missing the modern train [1 & 2] […]

Leave a Reply