Talk:Digital Classicist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


well there are 832 google mentions of the phrase "digital classicist", and a lot of them won't just be for this site. Not very notable- it needs to discuss some similar sites too or something. But they don't even normally allow websites an article- you would need to mention sources on proper newspapers that mention the project.Merkinsmum 20:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've paged through the first 50 or so results from a Google search of "digital classicist" (including the quotes), and didn't find a single one that was not a reference to this project. FYI. Gabrielbodard 15:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The text has been copied more or less word for word from this website. Unless someone can write it up properly with third-party sources, it should be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to start a non advertisment, non copyvio version in the temporary page Merkinsmum 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Compare to the, perhaps similar, Perseus Project which has 225,000 google mentions by my basic googling.Merkinsmum 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Digital Classicist is more than a website; it is a community of scholars parallel to the Digital Medievalist, the Digital Humanist, etc. The community hosts the website, a Wiki (from which the main page was exerpted-- (cc) license already, see --so no copyright infringement), a discussion group, several seminar series and conference panels, is closely affiliated to the Stoa Consortium, the Perseus Project, and similar institutions (from which it has a distinct and clear identity, however). Agreed the Wikipedia entry needs to discuss the term in general as well as the project specifically, although as far as I know the term is not in very general use outside of reference to the project. Gabrielbodard 23:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some proposed text to Merkinsmum's temp page. What do y'all think? Gabrielbodard 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Digital Classicist is a professional network, not simply a website. Googling "digitalclassicist" makes it clear that the group operates an active email list in addition to a website, providing subscribers with notices of a wide variety of events and projects, many of which are sponsored by the group itself. DC organizes seminars and public events. Membership on its advisory board is cited in the professional CVs of tenured university classics faculty (e.g., John Bodel RE whom see under John D'Arms). Paregorios 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The comparison with Perseus is somewhat less than apt. Perseus is a digital library research testbed that also provides a collection of digital texts and analysis tools to the public (the latter functions are in the process of moving to the Tufts Institutional Repository). Digital classicist is a professional network/organization, promoting best practices and new approaches. Perseus is also much older than DC, and the preponderance of web cites for it is due in part to its seniority -- Perseus was once practially the only online resource for primary sources in the original Latin and Greek. Paregorios 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That's true, the Perseus Project has been going for twenty years, and has been online for twelve. The Digital Classicist (which is complementary to the aims of Perseus, and counts Greg Crane on its advisory board) has been online for perhaps two years.Gabrielbodard 15:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a definition of "proper newspaper" in the context of critiques above. I fail to find it here: Paregorios 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Digital Classicist is the name of an organisation as noted above, a professional network of practitioners interested (as it said in the original text) in the application of computing techniques to research into the ancient world. Digital Classicist is a proper noun hence the capitalisation. This is something very different from perhaps an entry titled ‘digital classics’ or perhaps ‘digital classicist’ which would be more generic in nature. I am not aware however that the term ‘digital classicist’ is used in a context other than that of the Digital Classicist (as an organisation) and its members.

My survey of Google hits on “digital classicist” indicates that ALL these refer back to the organisation described here. As this project is new (about two years) I expect that in time the number of online references will grow as would the contributions to the Wikipedia article by its members. SimonMahony 15:26 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My aim in making it not about one particular site was just so it didn't read like an advert for a site (which it did before.) Perhaps if this is an actual discipline you could explain how to do it a bit more, remember the people you are writing for on this wiki don't know anything about it so they need the context, why this is important etc explained. Perhaps explain or list what tools are used, and wiki link to the articles about them.Merkinsmum 18:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read what you put in the temporary article, I love it, it reads far less like an advert and explains it more. I agree with what you might be trying to do at Digital Classicist. And I have used the unicode and other fonts, so I know a bit about them. Could you put another sentence or two explaining the software tools used? Are there any other similar sites, I suspect there might be one or two? I would love to know what is available and see it in an article. Anyone who's tried to use Perseus, knows the drawbacks of it (particularly in recent years). So please mention any similar notable initiatives, so it's not just an advert for Digital Classicist. Although it does sound an interesting site.Merkinsmum 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would still argue that there is room for two articles, as SimonMahony suggested above: digital classics is the article you are describing, which describes the application of digital humanities techniques and methodologies to the Classics as a discipline, including the history and some mention of various projects working in this field. Digital Classicist, on the other hand, is a specific description of this one project, which is a learned body analogous to (if younger and smaller than), say, the American Philological Association or the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organisations. There have been both conference papers and published articles describing the project. As noted above, the vast majority (if not all) references in Google to the search "digital classicist" are references to this project or its outputs. Who decides that a community or society is not important enough to warrant an article of its own? Gabrielbodard 17:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Digital Medievalist was speedy deleted due to being construed as advertising.:(Merkinsmum 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed to hear this about the Digital Medievalist. DM is a major project with international membership, a peer-refereed journal, and a nascent steering committee. If the original entry for that project was a short self-description drawn from the website (and labelled as a "stub") then surely the onus is on the Wikipedia community to expand, enlarge, and neutralise said description rather than simply delete it. Gabrielbodard 17:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I didnt realise the Digital Medievalist had been deleted from Wikipedia. I though that the whole point of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is that articles once started would have been added to and expanded by the online community rather than deleted for lack of content. In this case clearly I was wrong. What then is the point of Wikipedia? SimonMahony 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The stub just has to read less like an advert when first made. Some people are a bit trigger-happy at deleting it's true. Cut and paste of a large block of text from the site the article is about, has a tendency to read like an ad. If you argue you could probably get it remade. The DM site has more mentions online than this one. It could probably be remade but you need to use an encyclopedic tone rather than the blurb off the site itself.Merkinsmum 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert tho lol I've had pages I've made be deleted, and it felt really unfair.:( The requirements they have for sources/verifiability here are a bit harsh. Here is a bit that might help Wikipedia:Why_was_my_page_deleted?#Speedy_deletionsMerkinsmum 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

moved the temp page in[edit]

I have moved the temp page in. I've not done this before and did it just by cutting and pasting, so please forgive me all if I have not followed a proper procedure.:)Merkinsmum 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perseus Project[edit]

Would they really say classicists have to rely on other discipline's innovations, rather than create our own? I doubt it. There's a newer edition of their views on the matter here but unfortunately I can't access it, it confuses my computer! Maybe one of you can? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talkcontribs) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, this is very much Greg Crane's argument, that we don't need to create new technologies ourselves because the needs we have as a discipline are the same needs as much better funded disciplines such as biology and medicine. This is a simplification of the argument, of course, but there is a very strong case for not reinventing the wheel or trying to build a digital humanities in isolation. Gabrielbodard 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

avoid a rave puff piece[edit]

The point of making it not about 'digital classicist' was to make it read less like just a plug for one project. But we can make to separate articles if people prefer? But this needs to be not a rave puff piece for DC, just a description of what they do.Merkinsmum 23:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ok this is the article about digital classicist[edit]

I have summarised the description of the project because it was from a poster advertising it, and didn't have an encyclopedic tone. It needs info such as When was DC started? What is its relationship to the Stoa Consortium? I couldn't find these out very easily from the DC site. I put in that it is hosted at kings college, that counts in DCs favour a lot and is well worth a mention.Merkinsmum 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to duplicate digital classics[edit]

The middle section here is a copy of there so I'm removing it, hope that's ok.Merkinsmum 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)