We need a JFK Wiki

[Tracy Riddle]

I'm amazed at all the Wiki-type sites I come across. There are Wikis on Star Wars, the Godfather films, the DOOM games, Japanese anime, you name it. There's even a Boobpedia Wiki, for god's sake. I shudder to think how much time and energy people spent putting these together. Wouldn't it be great to have one dedicated to the JFK assassination (along with RFK and MLK)? The closest thing we have to a hyperlinked encyclopedia is Simkin's Spartacus site. Now, I have no experience in even creating a blog, so it's totally out of my league. But maybe it's something the more web-smart among us might think about.

[Magda Hassan]

I'm amazed at all the Wiki-type sites I come across. There are Wikis on Star Wars, the Godfather films, the DOOM games, Japanese anime, you name it. There's even a Boobpedia Wiki, for god's sake. I shudder to think how much time and energy people spent putting these together. Wouldn't it be great to have one dedicated to the JFK assassination (along with RFK and MLK)? The closest thing we have to a hyperlinked encyclopedia is Simkin's Spartacus site. Now, I have no experience in even creating a blog, so it's totally out of my league. But maybe it's something the more web-smart among us might think about.

I'll ask Peter who has created Wikispooks what he thinks and how feesible it is. Good idea Tracy.

[Jim Hackett II]

Thnx Tracy

[Tracy Riddle]

Wikispooks is good, but has little on JFK. There's no doubt that it's feasible; it would require a lot of hard work and know-how by the JFK community to put it together. We'd have to restrict the ability of people to edit the pages so LNers couldn't wreck the site.

[Peter Lemkin]

Its a great and noble idea, but a hell of a lot of work, given all the different actors, aspects, leads and false leads, cover-ups, evidence, players, suspects, investigations [sic], documents, etc. Another problem that will crop up are the many disagreements on various points, and who will make the final call[s] - or make sure that all viable alternate explanations are [re]presented. Good Luck! The software is absolutely the LEAST of the problems and exists 'out of the box'.

[Tracy Riddle]

I agree, Peter, it would be HUGE. That's probably why no one has wanted to tackle it. Everything would have to be footnoted and sourced. There would be a lot of conflicting information in each article, but as long as the reader could see the sources for each claim, that would be OK. Wikipedia tolerates a certain amount of that.

[Peter Lemkin]

I agree, Peter, it would be HUGE. That's probably why no one has wanted to tackle it. Everything would have to be footnoted and sourced. There would be a lot of conflicting information in each article, but as long as the reader could see the sources for each claim, that would be OK. Wikipedia tolerates a certain amount of that.

IMO, however, one would still need some 'moderators' to make sure it all stayed away from the official version and Mockingbirds, provocateurs, disinfo agents, etc. Yes, one could have a few articles with differing opinions on where shots came from, who was in the Plaza photos, whether Badgeman was real or shadows, etc. Once, when I was rich [hard to believe, as I'm not so poor I'm at risk shortly of loosing a roof over my head], I planned on funding such an encyclopedia in print, as such didn't yet exist on the internet and I was one of the few using the internet - mostly for communication - there wasn't much on it.

[C. Savastano]

If you need someone to contribute, let me know. I'm new to the forum but have been researching for years, I can also copy edit. I suppose I'm a bit of an tech anachronism, I still don't have a smart phone, I'm good with a computer but joined a few forums to get other perspectives and it offers the opportunity to combat misinformation. A few weeks in and I've been called a "Kook" almost a hundred times, weak arguments require insults I suppose.

[Magda Hassan]

I agree, Peter, it would be HUGE. That's probably why no one has wanted to tackle it. Everything would have to be footnoted and sourced. There would be a lot of conflicting information in each article, but as long as the reader could see the sources for each claim, that would be OK. Wikipedia tolerates a certain amount of that.

IMO, however, one would still need some 'moderators' to make sure it all stayed away from the official version and Mockingbirds, provocateurs, disinfo agents, etc. Yes, one could have a few articles with differing opinions on where shots came from, who was in the Plaza photos, whether Badgeman was real or shadows, etc. Once, when I was rich [hard to believe, as I'm not so poor I'm at risk shortly of loosing a roof over my head], I planned on funding such an encyclopedia in print, as such didn't yet exist on the internet and I was one of the few using the internet - mostly for communication - there wasn't much on it.

I think we would have it so only DPF members could contribute to it. If any one wanted to contribute to it they would have to join. But viewable to all. Lone nutter have plenty of places they can spout their crap.

[Jim Hargrove]

This seems like a wonderful idea, especially using DPF membership or something similar to control the noise. From Wikipedia on Wikis:

===================== QUOTE ==============================

Ward Cunningham and co-author Bo Leuf, in their book The Wiki Way: Quick Collaboration on the Web, described the essence of the Wiki concept as follows:[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]

• A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a plain-vanilla Web browser without any extra add-ons.
  
• Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation almost intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not.
  
• A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape.
  

A wiki enables communities to write documents collaboratively, using a simple markup language and a web browser. A single page in a wiki website is referred to as a "wiki page", while the entire collection of pages, which are usually well interconnected by hyperlinks, is "the wiki". A wiki is essentially a database for creating, browsing, and searching through information. A wiki allows non-linear, evolving, complex and networked text, argument and interaction.[SUP][6][/SUP]
A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. Generally, there is no review before modifications are accepted. Many wikis are open to alteration by the general public without requiring registration of user accounts. Many edits can be made in real-time and appear almost instantly online. This can facilitate abuse of the system. Private wiki servers require user authentication to edit pages, and sometimes even to read them.

================= END QUOTE ====================

Emphasis above was mine. Is this the sort of thing everyone has in mind?

Jim