Microgrants/Who's Who

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who's Who

Overview

My original suggestion was for a subscription to Who's Who, which for those who don't know is essentially an enormous list of notable living people in British society. The typical entry contains date of birth, education, career (including all important positions the subject held; for example, an entry on an army officer would list all his commands and positions above the rank of lieutenant colonel, and often quite a few below for 21st-century officers), hobbies, memberships and the like. However, Chris suggested that instead of an individual subscription for me, it might be worth WMUK purchasing what they call an "institutional subscription".

I'd be happy either way, and I'd be more than happy to email entries to other Wikipedians if the individual subscription turned out to be the best option.

Budget

An individual subscription (including a book that would give an Olympic weightlifter a bad back) is £295. I've no idea how much an institutional subscription would be, it "will be based on the size and type of institution". NB: Chris suggested I post this here, even though it's over £250.

Expected outcomes

Speaking purely about what I would do with, I would start with the 30-odd Chiefs of the General Staff. Many of their articles are poor quality, often because any coverage they get is focused on their tenure as CGS rather than the full biographical treatment. I would also use it to improve the articles of other senior military officers, politicians, and other people who pique my interest.

I could probably get several articles to GA status and, even if I just stuck to military officers, would be able to put flesh on many articles that are currently bare bones. I'd like to flesh out the articles on some important politicians, starting with current cabinet ministers (whose articles vary from excellent to really crap), police officers, ex-cabinet ministers. I predominantly write British biographies, so this is something that would be incredibly useful in my editing, both for making crappy articles less crappy and for the extra titbits that would help an excellent article attain FA status.

Who I am

Harry Mitchell, aka HJ Mitchell. I'm an active member of the Military History wikiproject, I write predominantly about post-WWII British Army generals but I'll write about anything that piques my interest, I wrote the only two featured articles on a Chief of the General Staff (Mike Jackson and Richard Dannatt), my latest project is the Iranian Embassy siege. I've purchased the books for my previous projects at my own expense, but, as invaluable as it would be, I can't afford this. Hence the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Brilliant idea. Dormskirk 18 August 2006
  • I don't want to be a pain in the arse, but it's been a week. Is this going to be approved? Or if more deliberation is required because it's over £250, what kind of time frame am I looking at? Would it help if I phoned/emailed OUP for a quote? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi Harry. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner about this - it's been a rather manic week. Since it's over £250, we'll need to discuss it as a board - which we can probably do at our in-person meeting this weekend. It would definitely help if you could phone OUP for a quote, and ideally also to double-check that the t&c of the subscription allow using the information to expand Wikipedia (it might be reference-only?). It would also be good to see if they would be willing to donate access, or provide a discount, for this purpose given the benefits they'll get in terms of high-visibility referencing on Wikipedia, e.g. along the lines of what Feminist Economics are doing. Mike Peel 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I feel slightly guilty but obliged to point out that Who's Who is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (on RSN at least) due to errors of omission and the autobiographic nature of content. If we kick off a content improvement project with information single sourced to Who's Who we are likely to attract a critic keen to revert the changes. I don't disagree that it may be used within the SPS guidance for uncontroversial basic facts but this rather reduces its usefulness. Personally, I find LexisNexis and The Times historic archives pretty handy for biographical information (esp. obituaries) and this might be a valid alternative option to fund. Fæ 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The content is submitted by the subjects, but I believe OUP's researchers verify it. I certainly wouldn't say it's self-published, but it's useful for things like DOB, schools and other things that most other sources don't consistently mention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
LexisNexis (and JSTOR) is an absolute godsend, but I'm unsure as to the cost there. Another interesting source could be the London Gazette - slightly more expensive than Who's Who. I admit that this won't go into the biographical depths that HJ Mitchell is after, but it might help. Failing that, the board might think it appropriate to support a visit to the British Library for him - I've found the BL to be a very useful source of information. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never used either, would they have the kind of information I'm looking for (starting with basic biographical details for Chiefs of the General Staff)? The Gazette is fantastic, but it only covers commissions, promotions, medals, membership of orders, and retirements. All essential for writing a decent military biography, but biographical details are also needed. As for the BL, that would be great, but slightly impractical to make a 400-mile round trip every time I write a new article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait - doesn't almost every UK citizen have free electronic remote access to Who's Who (and Who Was Who) through their library? Certainly I do - it seems a little odd to purchase access when many of us have it already. Lexis and/or JSTOR would be fab, but we'd be talking tens of thousands of Pounds for just a few accounts, I believe.
Also, the London Gazette is completely free - see http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ or this is Issue 1 of the London (then Oxford) Gazette from 1665 - though as a disclaimer, I work with the people who publish it. :-)
Jdforrester 09:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I know some libraries offer it. I don't think mine does (being in the arsehole of nowhere doesn't help), but I will look into it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way, if this gets bogged down, I would support buying a slightly older copy to support such a project and this can be approved without board level intervention. I see that editions within the last 3 years sell on ebay and Amazon for 10-20 quid. Fæ 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, £32.80 for last year's on Amazon (inc. P&P). No online access, which is a bummer but far from the end of the world. If I don't hear back from OUP, I'd be happy with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • That sounds like an excellent plan B - thanks Fæ for suggesting it. Mike Peel 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm archiving this proposal now, since it doesn't seem to be progressing further. Please feel free to re-open it, or start a derivative one, if appropriate. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Microgrants/Who%27s_Who&oldid=37825"