Scope - Revision history

Smith2 at 18:54, 19 June 2025

2025-06-19T18:54:42Z

JennyB at 22:53, 20 November 2024

2024-11-20T22:53:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 20 November 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Individuals~~:		=== '''1. Topical scope''': ===
			Historical development of documentation and information internationally. Limit to topics concerned with individuals’ knowledge, knowledge in society, documents and documentation. Exclude information technology ''per se'' and information science / systems science concerned with physical patterns (entropy, fractals, cybernetics, etc,) unless related to knowledge and documents.

	Organizations:		Closely related fields sometimes have existing biographical resources (e.g., the excellent ''Dictionary of American Library Biography'', 1978-2003), but I am not aware of any updated, open access resources. They have the same need.

			Comment: As with selection of individuals, there is little disadvantage in including (rather than excluding) when in doubt.

			Suggestion 1: Initially, start with narrow scope: documentation and information science.

			Suggestion 2: In marginal cases tend to inclusion rather than exclusion.

			Suggestion 3: If the policies and project succeed as well as we expect and this wiki is well-established, then, after a couple of years, consider deliberate expansion to a more comprehensive coverage including any and all related fields: libraries, archives, museum documentation, etc., probably with broader governance structure and sponsorship (IFLA, ALA, etc.).

			=== '''2. Criteria for inclusion''': ===
			1. Shift emphasis from ''pioneers'' to ''influence'' in or on the field, liberally interpreted to include teaching, writing, theory, history, design, implementation, funding, institutional support, whatever.  Architects and Visionaries in Modern Information Science

			2. The Pioneer pages was limited to North America and an emphasis on ASIST. Our scope should be international in scale and have a similar emphasis on organizations nationally and internationally that are or were comparable to ASIST (e.g., Aslib, FID).  Include ISKO, ACM SIGIR, IASSIST, IIS, IFLA…

			3. Note distinction between (i) influence ''in'' the field by an insider (e.g., Jesse Shera, B.C. Brookes) and (ii) influence ''on'' the field by an outsider (e.g., Vannevar Bush, Thomas Kuhn), who may pre-date or be unaware of the field but whose work influenced it.  We should talk about that. How should we include them? We could include a page or essay, and link to their Wikipedia pages. Anyone influential should have a Wikipedia page, and if not, we could contribute to Wikipedia.

			4. Should (self-)identification with field as insider be a consideration for inclusion? (This is meant to mean whether the individual did (or did) considers her/himself part of the information science community – not self-nomination for inclusion.)  I think that I need examples to grasp this. Discuss in a meeting?

			NB The Wikipedia offers advice on assessing candidates for biographical articles and also has the criterion “Noteworthy.” We should be more open to biographee input and primary sources that the Wkipedia is.

			=== '''3. Organizations:''' ===
			The Pioneers website had quite varied entries for 35 very diverse organizations: historic specialist companies, large corporations, government agencies, scholarly organizations, and educational institutions. Developing this coverage policy would be an enormous expansion. Such material can be quite valuable, especially for early specialized companies and organizations (e.g., Documentation, Inc,; Zator Inc.; the Concilium Bibliographicum). In many cases the these are closely associated with one or very few individuals (Mortimer Taube; Calvin Mooers; Herbert Field) but not always (e.g., Aslib; Batelle; NIDER (Netherlands). Organizations are probably more likely to have surviving archival records than persons.

			Perhaps a mixed policy initially :

			1. Incorporate with entry for person when closely associated.

			2. Separate entry when not.

			3. Limit to specialized organizations

			4. Limit to organizations active before some date, e.g., 1970.

			5. Use “Category” indexing to provide a virtual list (or a narrative page with links)..

			6. Encourage publication of narrative accounts outside the wiki.

			7. Reconsider policy and/or a separate directory project in the future.

JennyB: Created page with "Individuals: Organizations:"

2024-11-20T22:46:27Z

Created page with "Individuals: Organizations:"

New page

Individuals:

Organizations:

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 19 June 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:

	=== '''2. Criteria for inclusion''': ===		=== '''2. Criteria for inclusion''': ===
	1. Shift emphasis from ''pioneers'' to ''influence'' in or on the field, liberally interpreted to include teaching, writing, theory, history, design, implementation, funding, institutional support, whatever~~. ~~ Architects and ~~Visionaries~~ in ~~Modern~~ Information Science		1. Shift emphasis from ''pioneers'' to ''influence'' in or on the field, liberally interpreted to include teaching, writing, theory, history, design, implementation, funding, institutional support, whatever: Architects and visionaries in modern Information Science

	2. The Pioneer pages was limited to North America and an emphasis on ASIST. Our scope should be international in scale and have a similar emphasis on organizations nationally and internationally that are or were comparable to ASIST (e.g., Aslib, FID~~).  Include~~ ISKO, ACM SIGIR, IASSIST, IIS, ~~IFLA…~~		2. The Pioneer pages was limited to North America and an emphasis on ASIST. Our scope should be international in scale and have a similar emphasis on organizations nationally and internationally that are or were comparable to ASIST (e.g., Aslib, FID, ISKO, ACM SIGIR, IASSIST, IIS, IFLA, etc.).

	3. Note distinction between (i) influence ''in'' the field by an insider (e.g., Jesse Shera, B.C. Brookes) and (ii) influence ''on'' the field by an outsider (e.g., Vannevar Bush, Thomas Kuhn), who may ~~pre-date~~ or be unaware of the field but whose work influenced it.  We should talk about that. How should we include them? We could include a page or essay, and link to their Wikipedia pages. Anyone influential should have a Wikipedia page, and if not, we could contribute to Wikipedia.		3. Note distinction between (i) influence ''in'' the field by an insider (e.g., Jesse Shera, B.C. Brookes) and (ii) influence ''on'' the field by an outsider (e.g., Vannevar Bush, Thomas Kuhn), who may predate or be unaware of the field but whose work influenced it.

	4. Should (self-)identification with field as insider be a consideration for inclusion? (This is meant to mean whether the individual did (or did) considers her/himself part of the information science community – not self-nomination for inclusion.)  I think that I need examples to grasp this. Discuss in a meeting?

	NB The Wikipedia offers advice on assessing candidates for biographical articles and also has the criterion “Noteworthy.” We should be more open to biographee input and primary sources that the Wkipedia is.		NB The Wikipedia offers advice on assessing candidates for biographical articles and also has the criterion “Noteworthy.” We should be more open to biographee input and primary sources that the Wkipedia is.

	=== '''3. Organizations:''' ===		=== '''3. Organizations:''' ===
	The Pioneers website had quite varied entries for 35 very diverse organizations: historic specialist companies, large corporations, government agencies, scholarly organizations, and educational institutions. Developing this coverage policy would be an enormous expansion. Such material can be quite valuable, especially for early specialized companies and organizations (e.g., Documentation, Inc,; Zator Inc.; the Concilium Bibliographicum). In many cases the these are closely associated with one or very few individuals (Mortimer Taube; Calvin Mooers; Herbert Field) but not always (e.g., Aslib; Batelle; NIDER (Netherlands). Organizations are probably more likely to have surviving archival records than persons.		The Pioneers website had quite varied entries for very diverse organizations: historic specialist companies, large corporations, government agencies, scholarly organizations, and educational institutions. Developing this coverage policy would be an enormous expansion. Such material can be quite valuable, especially for early specialized companies and organizations (e.g., Documentation, Inc,; Zator Inc.; the Concilium Bibliographicum). In many cases the these are closely associated with one or very few individuals (Mortimer Taube; Calvin Mooers; Herbert Field) but not always (e.g., Aslib; Batelle; NIDER (Netherlands). Organizations are probably more likely to have surviving archival records than persons.

	Perhaps a mixed policy initially :		Perhaps a mixed policy initially :
Line 34:		Line 32:
	3. Limit to specialized organizations		3. Limit to specialized organizations

	4~~. Limit to organizations active before some date, e.g., 1970.~~		4. Use “Category” indexing to provide a virtual list (or a narrative page with links).

	5. Use “Category” indexing to provide a virtual list (or a narrative page with links)..

	6. Encourage publication of narrative accounts outside the wiki.		5. Encourage publication of narrative accounts outside the wiki.

	7. Reconsider policy and/or a separate directory project in the future.		6. Reconsider policy and/or a separate directory project in the future.