|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time capsule article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Time||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Digital Time Capsule
- 2 Electronic time capsule
- 3 Yahoo Time Capsule
- 4 First Modern Time Capsule
- 5 Ozymandias Project
- 6 "Construction of a time capsule"
- 7 Yorkshire Time Capsule Project
- 8 "...has been in use since 1939"
- 9 Adding to the List of Time Capsules
- 10 Is the International Time Capsule Society dead?
- 11 Time capsule versus time machine
Digital Time Capsule
I reverted the recent addition of the digital time capsule website as 3 or 4 mentions was excessive and obviously a self-link promo. I was going to remove the whole thing but on further thought it is a valid form of time capsule and will re-add a mention of it in more general terms. -- Stbalbach 01:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually on further looking at http://www.findthetimecapsule.com , it is just a promo site for a financial institution. "Time Capsule" in this sense is being used by analogy and is not really a time capsule, anymore than archive.org is a time capsule. --Stbalbach 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point that there is a promotional element in that website, but where does one draw the line? Completely removing a reference to it (as it is a valid example of storing and revealing things about the past) rather than describing it as a "digital time capsule" example is questionable. I find that your example of archive.org defeats your argument - that is the epitome of a digital time capsule. It has effectively locked up snapshots of periods in history, accessible to all. You do have a valid point regarding the excessive mentions, however.--Michelmreid 03:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- A web site, the Internet, is like a book, a library, a database of information that anyone can access anytime. A time capsule is something (objects or information) sealed away that no one can access (intentionally or not) that at some future date (pre-set or not) is opened for the purpose of historical revelation about the time when the capsule was sealed. http://www.findthetimecapsule.com fails on this definition on almost every count. As does archive.org .. I think people use the term by analogy to describe things on the Internet (even this page has a "History" tab which could by analogy be called a "time capsule", but it's not a time capsule by definition). The 1989 Oxford English Dictionary defines a time capsule as "a container used to store for posterity a selection of objects thought to be representative of life at a particular time." The International Time Capsule Society agrees. As does William Jarvis (2002). Time Capsules: A Cultural History. ISBN 0786412615
- --Stbalbach 05:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does this count - Time Netsule (http://www.timenetsule.com) 220.127.116.11 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- See discussion below electronic time capsule. I'm really not sure what to make of these Internet services as they are analogous but not exactly time capsules. I would like to see what a reliable and verifiable source says about it before adding to the article. Until them I'm concerned about the promotional aspect of adding company services to the article and giving them legitimacy without a verifiable source. -- Stbalbach 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Does this count - Time Netsule (http://www.timenetsule.com) 18.104.22.168 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Electronic time capsule
Electronic time capsule is a new website that I think shoud be added to the time capsule article. You send text,video,audio messages to a specific person in a specific date in the future. Yes it is a subscription based service but it is one of a kind.This may seem like spam or self promo but the reality is that I believe that this new service deserves to be added to the Time capsule article. www.electronictimecapsule.com The traditional time capsule concept polished up for the 21st century. Tell me what you think and if it should or not be in the Time capsule article. Kanucme 17:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be added. For one, it's a commercial service. For another, it's a "time capsule" by analogy, but it's not really a time capsule. The information is not sealed away where no one can get to it, it's simply stored by someone -- kind of like a will kept in a lawyers vault. It's a service you pay someone to maintain information for you until a set date. It's not a new kind of time capsule because it's not really a time capsule at all, except by analogy or for marketing purposes. -- Stbalbach 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since Electronic time capsule is a new service where should it be added. Is there a place for this service in this Encyclopedia? If not what happends? Thank you. Kanucme 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know. Not every service or company is noteworthy for Wikipedia. You could try creating a Wikipedia article about the company (but I think it would be nominated for deletion - depending how well it was written). If you disagree, and think it should be part of this article, you could start the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes track, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Straw polls. I really do think though that this service is not a time capsule (as defined by verifiable sources), and is just a commercial service, such as what a lawyer might provide, which is using the term time capsule by analogy for sales and marketing purposes. -- Stbalbach 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo Time Capsule
should we add information about Yahoo Time Capsule?? http://timecapsule.yahoo.com
22.214.171.124 - October 11
First Modern Time Capsule
The claim that the first 'modern' timecapsule was laid in 1937 seems wrong. An article in the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkenkaserne) on a barracks built in Munich Germany mentions a time capsule buried in its foundations in 1823. Sejtam 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Chem teacher (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) The reference to the Ozymandias Project was removed because it was “not notable” as no other web pages referenced it. It is actually referenced by http://www.longnow.org/views/links/educational/ which is a page of the Long Now Foundation which is dedicated to instilling long term thinking. If you access the “history of project “ link, you will see that Carl Sagan, the Smithsonian museum, and the museum of Natural History found the project notable enough to consider doing it. Chem teacher (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Links to the "History of the project" on the main web page now detail Carl Sagan’s proposal to place the Ozymandias project in earth orbit.
There are, in fact, two forms in the project: In the first all data is recopied every 10 years onto whatever the newest data recording medium is, and this goes on indefinitely, so there can never be an technology obsolescence problem. In the second data is stored for (say) 300,000 years on an imperishable medium with detailed instructions for decoding, presented in a set of universally understandable instructions. This method makes changes in format irrelevant, as it has to, considering its pretty unlikely that the data storage techniques will be identical to ours 300,000 years from now. This is all detailed in the article.
As to “not getting anywhere in 15 years” a project intended to last a million years or so can wait more than 15 to get started, much more.
- I still think the project lacks notability, with only one link to it, apparently...
- I agree it does address the data format problem, but only in the most vague of terms, and while the quote you gave acknowledges the problem, it neither specifies what an "imperishable medium" is nor what "universally understandable instructions" would look like. In other words, it describes the problem, but not the solution. (I have no idea how "recopying to the latest technology available" is supposed to work on a time capsule...)
- To me, Ozymandias looks like somebody had the idea to do it, but ran out of energies and ideas long ago, and now it's only a zombie, not to mention the site doesn't have much useful content -- which is why I'd like to see it removed from WP. --Syzygy (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Chem teacher (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC) The Ozymandias project has been rewritten to make clearer the distinction between two modes one for if civilization persists and one for if it fails. As for imperishable materials :quartz slabs drilled with a laser and filled with a material of a different index of refraction and identical thermal expansion , was one proposal spelled out in detail.
A library of Stone slabs with cartoon instructions for deciphering the actual digital data slabs,is of course, only a general outline. A committee of linguists and anthropologists would probably be needed to work out the full sequence of a credible attempt to communicate from an extinct language to a living one.
I am receiving comments from readers about how to best do this: one cleaver one calls for the use of a periodic table to serve as one universally recognizable basis for a start. I will include This and other suggestions in a future addendum.
As , to the issue of whether or not the idea for the project is still active: I am getting constant feedback from readers, and the idea has plenty of time to work its way into the public consciousness.
It is funny that an idea the content of which is to save our works for hundreds of thousands, or millions of years is judged to be inactive if nothing pops within ten years, as if im proposing an idea for a fashion magazine! A little longer perspective is appropriate for something dealing with the slow fall and rise of civilizations.
- Hey teacher! My argument that the project is slow in progressing wasn't meant to invalidate the enterprise as such. The cathedrals weren't built in one day exactly either. But the question is whether the project is notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia. WP is not a collection for everything, but for the important things. Consider some unknown amateur author who is writing a book in some corner of the world. It might turn out to become a bestseller and change the way we perceive literature -- in the future. For the minute, it's simply not yet notable. Again, this is not meant to speak against Ozymandias as such, just against its suitability for inclusion in the WP. -- Syzygy (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well... syzygy ..your right ...wikipedia should just be for the important and the notable, but you’re off base as to how one should assess those characteristics.
First..what’s important is not confined to what is being talked about a lot ,on the net and otherwise. When Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance it was not noticed by any major figures in Biology at all, and sat unread in a few copies of a particularly obscure journal.
Darwin not having read it, got into serious trouble, because without it, his evolutionary theory had difficulties and even contradictions. He desperately needed Mendel to complete his theory. It was published but Darwin didn’t know it.
The point here is that Mendel’s ideas were just as important before they were known widely, as after they were “rediscovered”. They didn’t magically become important at the moment somebody in authority accidently picked them up read them, and really thought about them for the first time. They were crucial all along.
As for notability.... well the Museum Of natural History and The Smithsonian thought the project notable enough to think about doing, and Carl Sagan thought it notable enough to propose a variation. That constitutes a reasonable degree of notability.
The main point is that nothing is more appropriate to a Wikipedia article about time capsules than a reference to an idea which addresses all the long term storage problems mentioned in the article, and more, is really an idea for new kind of time capsule altogether, one that’s never been done.(Yet).
re: removal on Jan 19: Removal as “promotional link” is baseless The Ozymandias project is not a commercial enterprise but an idea. It is directly relevant to the issues being discussed in the article. Promoting ideas is what Wikipedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Chem teacher (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)for feb 11 redo: Again this is not a commercial site there is no provision for contributions and none have ever been accepted.
- I've taken the liberty to remove the Ozymandias again. It simply isn't notable. Find me third-party references. Carl Sagan wrote "The place to store such a record, however, is, I think, not underground, but in space", obviously not thinking too highly and being skeptical about the idea of a time capsule in general, while the Smithsonian wrote "I'm sorry that our Institutional priorities cannot embrace your hopes and aspirations at this time", which is a friendly but nonetheless determined "No". Both have simply written a friendly rejection slip, not more.
- WP is not for "promoting ideas" (Who gave you that idea?), but for the dissemination of that which is currently considered true and important. The hypothetical importance some project may gather in the future is not a criterion, otherwise any garage band (which may or may not rise to superstar fame in the future) would deserve mention, and anybody whose manuscripts were rejected by some publisher would merit their own page, because they may be the future Stephen Kings. There are clear criteria for WP inclusion, and I fail to see how Ozymandias would meet any of them. But feel free to convince me. --Syzygy (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"Construction of a time capsule"
Yorkshire Time Capsule Project
I would like the editors to consider adding a link to this website www.yorkshiretimecapsule.blogspot.com. the website offers ways to upload files or mail documents as a way of participating in the project and whilst there are products available to buy from here, participation in the project is free as this is a primarily a global social project. I think that the site is worthy of inclusion as, unlike Yahoo Time Capsule, we are currently still accepting contributions and this may be of interest to any members of the public who choose to read the time capsule wiki. Thanks for your time, Sarah (188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
- Thanks for pointing the project out. But while the YTCP seems to be a worthy effort, it must be borne in mind that Wikipedia pursues a policy to reduce external links to a minimum, and that those included should either point to more detailled information on the topic in general, or to particularly noteworthy examples of time capsules. I personally fail to see what sets the YTCP apart from numerous similar projects, but feel free to explain its special merits. (And please don't feel that non-inclusion is in any way passing a judgement on the project -- it simply means it's not appropriate here in this context.) -- Syzygy (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. I understand the reasons for limiting external links, would it be appropriate to create a wikipedia page for YTCP and have a link to that here? The project has no special merits in itself but it is one of few that allow anyone to contribute that isnt just a digital capsule. (Siedwards (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC))
- I'm afraid YTCP is not (yet) eligible for inclusion in the Wikipedia. You may want to check out the Notability guidelines to get a clearer picture. The idea behind Wikipedia is to report what is noteworthy, not what should or will be. A google search today turned up five hits for YTCP, and all of them appear to be self-promotional, ie nobody else has taken notice of YTCP, so this looks a bit bleak.
- Have you submitted YTCP to Dmoz or a similar web directory yet? I think this is the most appropriate way to promote the idea behind it, and to increase participation and general awareness for new and up and coming projects like YTCP.
- Hope this helps, cheers! -- Syzygy (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It does not have to be MORE notable, A project which was commented on favorably
by Carl Sagan, considered for implementation BY the Smithsonian, and considered “visionary” by the director of the Museum of natural History ( all this documented in the history of project link on the Ozymandias web site ) is already sufficiently notable. Of course Syzyrgy might not consider any of the aforementioned sufficiently notable, but this is not a reasonable criteria for notability.
Although the only letter given from the Smithsonian was the one saying that they didn’t have the funds to do it, there were two or three from them preceding it which stated that various departments were considering it, which consideration took more than three months before deciding not to. If a museum considers doing a project for this long it indicates considerably more interest than a “polite no”.
Sagan definitely thought it would be better to put it in space but his statement “I agree that if deep-freezing is inexpensive enough, it's probably a good idea to do it.” Means just what it says. (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Chem Teacher, the WP idea of notability relies on third party interest:
"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice.
- Ozymandias hasn't, except in the shape of replies to letters or mails to other organisations and people, which can hardly be called "attracted". Noteworthiness according to WP guidelines consists basically in independent third-party coverage in reliable media. Chem Teacher, you apparently are part of the project. If you consider it notable, why not just wait until some third person comes to the same conclusion and will support an inclusion into WP? As long as your seem to be the sole supporter, notabilitiy is difficult to establish.
- This is not meant to be a criticism of the project per se -- personally I consider it interesting and not the worst project on the web. But, as I wrote some time ago, WP is not a collection for everything, and not a mirror of the web, but a compilation of that which currently is relevant, and considered relevant.
- Please stop reinserting the link. If you feel admin arbitration is required, feel free to proceed with the necessary steps. -- Syzygy (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Or we could simply ask for third opinions? Just an idea, because the two of us obviously won't agree on the status of Ozymandias in the foreseeable future. -- Syzygy (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Chem teacher (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)|talk]]) 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)I agree that at this point it makes sense to get this issue decided by the wikipedia dispute resolution system. Having it decided by a single third party seems too much like flipping a coin to me, if it were twenty editors that might be alright, but one is too arbitrarily.
As soon as I understand the workings of the Wikipedia mechanism better I will submit this issue for resolution.
- Never really tried this Third Opinion thing myself, but AFAIUI you simply enter the page in question at WP:3 under the section "Active Disagreements", and wait for someone to respond. I'm not sure if this will result in a single opinion or possibly several responses. I'd prefer this route, though, before escalating to the next step and asking for admin arbitration or something the like. --Syzygy (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Chem teacher (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)I want to send this to the mediation committee which is a step before arbitration ,and is not binding. The third opinion option still seems to random to me, I would prefer editors who do this regularly and are less likely to be partisan either way.
I will fill out the forms and they will look at this discussion page. I will abide by their decision,
In either case, your input was a factor in my reediting my article to be clearer about some things, which is an ongoing process.
Chem teacher (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I referred it to the "mediation cabal" which is a step called informal mediation, which they recommend taking before formal mediation. I filled out the form which resulted in the following page being created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-12-02/Time_capsule
It might expedite matters if you sign that page to show you want mediation for this issue, and, of course, you can edit it.
- Done so. Is there a reason the mediation page doesn't show up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal ...? --Syzygy (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"...has been in use since 1939"
Adding to the List of Time Capsules
Hello fellow wiki-editors. I'm adding new listings of time capsules to the list page. I'd like to invite more activity to that page for a good reason. I'm leading up a project for a time capsule for next year and one of the items we'd like to put in the time capsule, is a list of other time capsule complete with GPS coordinates and dates they will be opened. This is in the expectation of telling people of the future where other time capsules can be found. Based on the approval of other wikieditors I'd like to head up this directory of time capsules here at wikipedia with the aforementioned article. I welcome your input, with a collaborative effort we may have a more meaningful index to drop into our time capsule next year.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the International Time Capsule Society dead?
There has been no meaningful content added to this page since 2009. There have been some edits but no worthwhile contributions and even one of their main references called "Affordable Time Capsules" is a dead link. Not sure that that was about but it seems like a self serving commercial company. But the very scar thing is that this society's mission is to build an index of time capsules through submissions from time capsule planners. But where does that information go? Is it in public domain? Can we be assured it's not just a black hole where the info goes nowhere? I believe if this society is to maintain a presence and gather information there there should be some contributions and current involvement. What's your thought's on this? --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)