Content moving from .org

[Site Admin]

Content from some sections of this site is now being transferred to the new site. Most of this is currently in the 'About Lenkiewicz' section. Once it is on the new site, it will be removed from .org.

Once things have settled down, I anticipate some restructuring of .org will be in order.

[sartre]

Content from some sections of this site is now being transferred to the new site. Most of this is currently in the 'About Lenkiewicz' section. Once it is on the new site, it will be removed from .org.

Once things have settled down, I anticipate some restructuring of .org will be in order.

Some questions and comments on the new site, Dave.

1.  Firstly, I think it's an excellent idea, provided we start as we mean to continue. The usefulness of wikis to an end-user lies in their cross-referencing capability. The discipline needed to impose this needs to be established at an early stage, including links to as yet non-existent pages which can later be fleshed out. We could do with a set of 'model' pages to which we can refer when adding content.

Take, for example, the following paragraph from "The Library":

The Death Room also contained a glass topped display table containing the manuscript Mary Notebook, and the original notebook relating to the Old Age project. A glazed cabinet against the east wall contained a collection of Lenkiewicz’s manuscript Diary Notes volumes, which dated from the mid-1970s, along with a collection of his relationship notebooks, mostly from the late 1980s/early 1990s. As with the downstairs rooms, the Death Room also contained artefacts connected with the room’s theme, and a collection of skulls and other body parts, and Nazi memorabilia were kept here, together with the mummy of Diogenes, which was secreted within a compartment in the glazed cabinet.

We presumably are aiming for something like this, where the text in blue would link to other parts of the "book":

The Death Room also contained a glass topped display table containing the manuscript Mary Notebook, and the original notebook relating to the Old Age project. A glazed cabinet against the east wall contained a collection of Lenkiewicz’s manuscript Diary Notes volumes, which dated from the mid-1970s, along with a collection of his relationship notebooks, mostly from the late 1980s/early 1990s. As with the downstairs rooms, the Death Room also contained artefacts connected with the room’s theme, and a collection of skulls and other body parts, and Nazi memorabilia were kept here, together with the mummy of Diogenes, which was secreted within a compartment in the glazed cabinet.

2.  I notice that there's no forum on LBP to discuss how we go about adding, cross-referencing and reviewing content. Will those discussions be carried on here?

3.  There's a danger that the new site will end up more as a scrapbook than a book. There needs to be (a) a well-thought out framework for the information; and (b) some consistency to the contributions, which to my mind means someone will need to review each contribution, perhaps spellcheck it and if necessary rewrite it or encourage the author to apply standard styling to it.

4.  Will there be room for multimedia contributions - e.g. the recent YouTube videos & the TV and radio interviews? Since copyright issues may preclude the latter, if one of us were to make a transcript of a TV/radio interview, would that also infringe copyright?

5.  The site appears to lack some of the features of Wikipedia. Are you using a wiki or is this a different software tool? I don't know the technical issues involved - is the software created by Wikipedia freely available or is there a licensing issue?

6.  Given the experience of Wikipedia with vandalism and power struggles over hotly-contested topics, will there be a backup system in place to preserve the site content at regular checkpoints? Will there be procedures in place to ensure that the site would survive, God forbid, a chance encounter between yourself and a bus?

7.  Are you paying to host the site? Do you need donations from us?

8.  Related to the previous question, is the site intended to generate income in the longer term? There's nothing wrong in you making a profit but to whom will the site belong? What guarantees do we have that the site will be available as a free resource to (at the very least) those who have contributed material to it?

I don't mean to imply anything from that last question, but I think it's worth making it clear at the outset where everyone stands.

[Site Admin]

Some questions and comments on the new site, Dave.

Thanks sartre, lots of food for thought!

The usefulness of wikis to an end-user lies in their cross-referencing capability.

I have justed added some functionality to the site that will automatically convert predefined words/phrases into links to the main entry for that item.

For example, it somebody adds new content that contains the term "Project !", that will automatically be converted into a link to the main entry for Project 1. If you take a look at the Biography page on the new site, you will see a couple of examples of this in operation.

I am also looking at other ways to make it easier for contributors to point towards related content.

2.  I notice that there's no forum on LBP to discuss how we go about adding, cross-referencing and reviewing content. Will those discussions be carried on here?

There are no plans to add a forum to the new site, as I think this would result in a blurring of lines between the roles and purposes of the two sites.

... There needs to be (a) a well-thought out framework for the information ...

If anybody has suggestions on the framework, please share them now. I've had a few personal emails about the new site, but only one person has come up with any actual suggestions for structuring the content. So, for now, it remains quite organic and fluid.

... and (b) some consistency to the contributions, which to my mind means someone will need to review each contribution, perhaps spellcheck it and if necessary rewrite it or encourage the author to apply standard styling to it.

I see this as a major barrier to people actually contributing. Many will simply not bother if they think it's going to be like sitting an A Level exam. And, in any case, isn't one of the main advantages of a wiki the fact that the 'community' itself acts as a peer reviewing process? If there are typos, anybody can correct them. If the content layout or structure could be improved, anybody can do it. If there are omissions, anybody can correct them.

If it ends up being down to one person to add and maintain all the content, then it kind of defeats the purpose (and the project would never get close to reaching its full potential).

Just my personal views, of course 

4.  Will there be room for multimedia contributions - e.g. the recent YouTube videos

Yes, these can be inserted directly into content in the same way that they were here. This is allowed by YouTube (and actively encouraged).

... TV and radio interviews? Since copyright issues may preclude the latter, if one of us were to make a transcript of a TV/radio interview, would that also infringe copyright?

Copyright is likely to preclude these from being added to the site.

If people have personal footage that they would like to make available through the site, I can look at the best way of doing this.

5.  The site appears to lack some of the features of Wikipedia. Are you using a wiki or is this a different software tool? I don't know the technical issues involved - is the software created by Wikipedia freely available or is there a licensing issue?

The site is powered by Drupal (www.drupal.org). This is not a 'true' wiki. However, I do think it has significant advantages over many of the dedicated wiki tools. The main one is that it is fairly easy for contributors to use. Most of the wiki applications are far from intuitive (certainly for novices). I wanted to make it as easy as possible for people to contribute. I think that Drupal should enable this. It also has a large number of 'plugins' that make it fairly easy to add extra features or functionality.

It also has the advantage of being something that I am familiar with 

6.  Given the experience of Wikipedia with vandalism and power struggles over hotly-contested topics, will there be a backup system in place to preserve the site content at regular checkpoints?

Any edits/modifications to content are stored as 'revisions' A site 'Editor' has the ability to revert a content item to a previous version. Regular users are not able to do this. Site Editors will also have the ability to control some of the other features of the site that are not available to regular members. I am hoping that a number of people will be willing to take on this role, as it will help to make the site easier to maintain.

It is possible that people will (ab)use the site to air personal grievances and vendettas  We shall have to address this if/when it happens.

Will there be procedures in place to ensure that the site would survive, God forbid, a chance encounter between yourself and a bus?

There is nothing in place at the moment, but thanks for the nudge 

7.  Are you paying to host the site? Do you need donations from us?

8.  Related to the previous question, is the site intended to generate income in the longer term?

From 4 years of running .org, I have no expectation that LBP could ever generate income. In the past 4 years .org has generated less than £50 in advertsing revenue (Amazon/eBay links and the like). I have no plans to add advertising to LBP.

I also believe it to be unlikely that people will make direct donations.

I have considered some form of sponsorship. If anybody has thoughts on this, please share them.

...to whom will the site belong? What guarantees do we have that the site will be available as a free resource to (at the very least) those who have contributed material to it?

The site 'belongs' to me, but if you read the copyright notice on LBP you will see that I make no claims of ownership over the actual content:

Unless stated otherwise, all content on the Lenkiewicz Book Project is © copyright 2007 by the individual contributors and can be used in accordance with the Creative Commons License, Attribution-hareAlike 2.0. This license (very similar to the GPL) allows anyone to copy, modify, and redistribute modifications of all or part of the Lenkiewicz Book Project as long as:

    * the license is included with all copies or redistributions.
    * the Lenkiewicz Book Project is attributed as the originating document.

These conditions can be waived only if permission is obtained from the copyright holder(s). By posting comments to the Lenkiewicz Book Project, all site users agree that the comments can be revised and/or incorporated wholesale into the Lenkiewicz Book Project under the licensing terms given above.

As I see it, we either wait for TLF to do something like LBP (perhaps with more of the guarantees that you are looking for), or we just get on and do it ourselves now.

[Jack Sparrow]

It strikes me that the factual core of the 'About Lenkiewicz' content will evolve very little in Wiki form. A Project list is a Project list and Robert's notes are what they are. Similarly for contributions like Jason's essay on the library - is there a queue of people eager to write on that subject?

However, what we don't hear about generally are people's response to Robert's work and his ideas. The Wiki could carry on Robert's work by recording the thoughts of readers (as opposed to sitters). One way to structure that would be to set up headers featuring some of Robert's interesting opinions on the nature of relationships and inviting people to comment on how those ideas strike them. There's no reason you couldn't round out the Addictive Behaviour project by inviting a 1,000 words on that subject, or indeed on any project.

Threads like 'The Question of Space' should be also encouraged on the new site. How people read his paintings is quite fascinating.

Although most people won't have access to new information about Robert or his work, what they are authorities on are their own recollections. I think it would be good to invite little 'portraits' of Robert by people who knew him. Wouldn't it be great if his students could do a short piece 'My First Lesson' or models 'Sitting for Lenkiewicz' or punters 'Owning a Print' or collectors 'Buying Pics from Robert', and what about 'Patrons Corner' or 'Robert: My Father'? If you make these headings, I think people will be encouraged to jump in. It might be amusing to have a voting system for such entries so that the best anecdotes are ranked and singled out for ease of access.

All of this helps to build up a picture of the artist. Robert was all about the public response to his work and it would be a unique approach to a Wiki to try to maintain that.

[gbl]

Anyone know who wrote the 'The Final Betrayal of R O Lenkiewicz under 'Critiques and Reviews' in the Book Project? Sounds pretty damning!

[sartre]

As I see it, we either wait for TLF to do something like LBP (perhaps with more of the guarantees that you are looking for), or we just get on and do it ourselves now.

Dave, let's go for it!

Jack - I like your idea of gathering reactions to ROL's work and personal recollections/anecdotes. It's important to collect this information now before memories fade or people die. The idea of participating in a project after the artist's death is intriguing and something I imagine Robert Lenkiewicz would have approved of.

Sorry this is so brief. I'm just about to go off on holiday and will hopefully write again in a fortnight. Unlike Christopher Raven I'll be doing my best to keep away from the Internet while I'm away.