Interesting, but seems to me also to be potentially tricky. Seems on the one hand to be a way of expanding family info on personages with bios on WP in a genealogical direction. Yet Wikidata pages on those individuals already link to WikiTree (P2949) family info, where that exists, so to a certain extent this might be duplication? On the other hand, is there an extent to which associative relationships (such as lesser partners of someone famous in a business venture, or non-superstar members of a notable team) or creative contexts (connected with some notable artistic, scientific, engineering, or policy achievement) might be considered? With the slopes of "highest" peaks, and maybe some "lesser" peaks based on other criteria, would that (to mix metaphors) make Gen Spore kind of a level-2 league or supporting cast list? Still could be productive and useful, but those are some questions on first encounter with the concept.--A12n (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- We could consider directions like this, for all sorts of historic persons and their connections - there are a lot of biographies that are interesting and uncovered on Wikipedia, but not COI or a privacy issue. I thought a modest genealogical extension to notable people would be a good way to start. I do think a project tied more directly to Wikimedia has an inherent advantage over WikiTree and can build into the existing ecosystem and community in ways that an outside commercial project cannot.--Pharos (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Worth the effort - and yes, agree that there are many interesting biographies. Not sure the value-added for Wikispore to get directly into the genealogy "echospace" as someone once put it - there are so many sites now (of which WikiTree, which is technically not non-profit, but behaves more or less like one, seems closest in form to Wikimedia projects, in part due to its use of Mediawiki software). But maybe there is potential as a kind of biographical (encyclopedic-)dictionary paralleling genealogies. In practice, content on WikiTree generally seems limited to facts and references, with the occasional quoted bio (i.e., not so much articles as supporting info for the data & relationships). So maybe not as much potential duplication from Gen Spore as I was thinking. Anyway, am interested to see how this starts and evolves. (BTW, am assuming you've thought of cases where an individual is within two degrees of separation from more than one person with a WP article.) --A12n (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Name and scope
I've changed the named and scope from Gen Spore -> Bio Spore following off-wiki discussion with a couple of people, and broader focus for a biographical dictionary on people of historical interest.--Pharos (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts:
- Since so many of the people written up in Wikipedia articles due to their accomplishments, or positions held, were men who were married and whose wives contributed to their successes, perhaps a focus of Bio Spore could be acknowledgement of those women's lives. That is, as spouses of famous people, and also for what they did in their own right (perhaps in the shadow of their more famous partner).
- Given the somewhat expanded scope of this spore, maybe one suggestion could be that selected individuals prominently associated with organizations profiled in Org Spore, but not themselves meriting full Wikipedia articles, could be subjects of Bio Spore articles. --A12n (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Another angle to consider might be working with material from Max Dashu’s Suppressed Histories Archive, which focuses on women. Not sure exactly how this might work – there are some women profiled on one page, for example, but without having checked, I think at least some of them may already have WP articles. It’s been a while since I’ve looked into this, but some of the articles on her site deal with categories and movements, which don’t really fit into a framework of personal bios (nor for that matter into an Org Spore format). Still worth reflecting on to the extent that Wikispore is dedicated to exploring new ways of collecting & presenting knowledge. --A12n (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I agree these are all fruitful directions for Wikispore to branch out into, while still acknowledging that some notability reforms are due in this regard at Wikipedia as well. I'm hopeful that there can be some interplay between the two, as the community gets a better sense of what is possible in each medium, and as both evolve. But there will always probably be an underspace of what can't quite fit into Wikipedia, like localized organizations of social movements that are only documented in primary sources, and the local social activists who historically organized them.--Pharos (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The genealogical criteria
I tweaked the initial mention of the genealogical criteria to be more general with respect to relationships. The two degrees of separation specification is left as it was of course. The reason for the change is that I'm understanding the latter as covering not only parents & grandparents, but also children & grandchildren, uncles & aunts, nephews & nieces, and spouses & their siblings.