Archinect
anchor

editing Wikipedia

184
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect

Why do these entries in Wikipedia seem so incomplete and boring? Keeping in mind that these are the first google hits in their respective categories, I propose that we take on the challenge to spruce them up! After we finish these we can tackle others.

Let's use this space to strategize and discuss changes.

TO SEE A GOOGLE DOCUMENT OF THE ENTRIES AND MAKE CHANGES GO TO:

www.gmail.com

username: archinectwikiproject
password: archiwiki
email address: archinectwikiproject @ gmail . com (no spaces)

The document can be accessed by clicking on the 'documents' button on the top right. As you make changes please post them here too.

 
Jun 28, 07 4:23 pm
KEG

"Architectural services typically address both feasibility and cost for the builder, as well as function and aesthetics for the user." you mean that doesn't say it all? shit, why am I going to grad school then?

that is hilarious. I need to ponder about this. great thinking q!

Jun 28, 07 4:33 pm
xacto

Conservapedia: a conservative encyclopedia you can trust.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

did you know that kangaroos trace their origins back to Noah's Ark?

Jun 28, 07 4:40 pm
xtbl

i like the uncyclopedia because of this:

Jun 28, 07 4:50 pm
WonderK

There's already a thread about the Conservapedia, so let's stick to the task at hand.....

~~~~~

Great idea, but how much "truth" are we allowed to write? Do you think the Wiki people will take kindly to us exposing how much money we don't make, etc?


Jun 28, 07 4:54 pm

hmmm... something like that could be another brand new page; Architectural Profession on a paragrah called “Wages”.

The Architecture page should probably stick to built and unbuilt projects the architects that have designed them and their importance to the field.

Similar for the Landscape and US Arch, what do you think?

Jun 28, 07 5:01 pm

i love this picture on wikipedia's architect entry

Jun 28, 07 5:01 pm
Sarah Hamilton

Wow, is he taking the ARE?

Jun 28, 07 5:02 pm
xtbl

what would be a good starting point? the article on architecture in general, is pretty thin.

should it be like a history text book

should there be a seperate page dedicated to the realities of the practice?

Jun 28, 07 5:03 pm

"Also see: Architectural Practice"?

Jun 28, 07 5:07 pm
mightylittle™

you'll need a disambiguation page to help discern the differences between Architecture, Architectural Practise, ect...

they'll accept it i ber, but depending on the wording and what-not, you may get one of those "This Entry Is Written in the Form of an Advertisement" disclaimers.

or better still...

"The Content of this Article is in Dispute"

great idea though. i unfortunately have nothing useful to contribute except anectdotal personal information.

Jun 28, 07 5:08 pm

I guess that for the audience we are striving for it should be more time-line based. As I said before including built projects built and unbuilt that have had a lasting impact. I would suggest not using styles but rather time periods (but that’s my bias).

Jun 28, 07 5:10 pm

this does seem strange that the institutions which are projecting, defining, and protecting the image of the architect and architecture have never really followed this or even considered that it is important to have an adequate and thorough entry on a site like wikipedia.

Jun 28, 07 5:24 pm
KEG

well, we should definitely discuss Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry. After all, those are the only architects anyone has ever heard of.

Jun 28, 07 5:25 pm
FrankLloydMike

I'll just copy what I posted on the news thread regarding this:

Define Ourselves?
Senior Editor Quilian Riano posed in the discussion section a very important issue concerning the wikipedia entries revolving about the subject of architecture. The question I have about this issue is why haven't the institutional keepers of the faith not already revised these thin texts for the emergent web-based participants around the world?
- John Jourden on Jun 28, 07 | 2:21 pm



I think this speaks to the larger issue: why is architecture so poorly defined to the general public in general? Unlike literature, music, the arts, sciences, history and even philosophy, architecture--much less architectural theory--is almost universally absent from American education except in collegiate architecture schools and some related fields. Architecture is poorly understood by those outside the architecture community, and great misconceptions abound. It is in the best interest of both the architecture community and the public for this to be remedied: so that the architecture community can better present itself, and so the public can be understand the intentions and processes of the architecture community, and so the two form a more symbiotic relationshop and are no longer so distinct.

Jun 28, 07 5:41 pm
coedname-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

art department needs a little tlc too...

hmmm...
what about... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_design? in the wake of 2/3 of the world population will live in the cities soon.



Jun 28, 07 8:12 pm

coedname-X agree with that. The lack of quality in the art and art in america pages are actually the reason why i took another look at the architecture entires.

But to get the ball rolling, let's start with the architecture.

Do we agree with the outline in Wikipedia?:

Intro/Description

1 The Architect

2 Theory of Architecture
2.1 Historic treatises
2.2 Modern concepts of architecture

3 History
3.1 Origins and the ancient world
3.2 The Medieval builder
3.3 Renaissance and the architect
3.4 The Industrial Revolution
3.5 Modernism and reaction

4 See also
5 References

After we work on an outline we could go point-by-point

Jun 29, 07 8:45 am
WonderK

The outline looks OK. I think I would like to include a section about "the architect's responsibilities" and licensure. Also, education? If a casual user is interested in architecture, it might be helpful to understand the process of becoming one, no?

Jun 29, 07 9:18 am

it should probably say something about how you need to know a lot of math and that you shouldn't even consider it if you're not 'creative' and if you can't draw REALLY well. ; )

Jun 29, 07 9:23 am
AP

dub, that sounds like it could go in the previously mentioned "architectural profession" or "architectural practice" page. perhaps there could also be an "architectural education" page...

this way you can understand fully:

1 - becoming an architect (education/licensure)

2 - being an architect (responsibilities/aspects of practice)

this of course is in addition to the more historical "architecture" page, as outlined above...

just some pre-coffee thoughts.

Jun 29, 07 9:28 am

Some thoughts on changes/additions to the outline:

Intro/Description
(The one in Wiki is OK, but I think we could add to it).

1 The Architect
1.1 Education (very short and global with link to other page)
1.2 Profession (very short and global with link to other page)

2 History
2.1 Origins and the ancient world
2.2 Classical Period
2.3 The Medieval builder
2.4 Renaissance and the enlightenment
2.5 The Industrial Revolution
2.6 Modernism
2.7 Other Modernisms
2.8 Postmodernism
2.9 Contemporary

3 Theory of Architecture*
3.1 Treatises and Manifestos
3.2 Paper Architecture
3.2 Throughts and ideas from outside of architecture
3.3 Theory today

4 See also (kick ass bibliography and links)
5 References

* Theory should be rolled into each of the historical sections anyway.

Jun 29, 07 9:38 am
WonderK

OK, now that I, too, have had my coffee, these look good to me.

Jun 29, 07 9:57 am

should sustainability be its own section or a subsection in the architecture page?

These could also use a little help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building

Jun 29, 07 10:03 am
WonderK

Q, you are getting me really excited....I've always wanted to edit an article on Wikipedia! I see several opportunities for improvement on that page, including all of the latter sections, which are anemic at best, and they don't even mention pre-fab.

Jun 29, 07 10:14 am

q, i agree but would like to bring up a question.

this and most other Wikipedia entries are almost all the time explain things from the western point of view.
as if chinese, japanese, muslim world, africa has never contributed to anything. the history section is pretty much is a european historical development.
so i do have a problem with that.
when a lot of eastern cities were established, europeans were still living in small villages and inside the rulers' castles. unless the attidute is changed about writing the history from only western point of view, i don't see much difference.

Jun 29, 07 12:21 pm
Alan Loomis

It probably fits under 1.2 Profession, but there should be space for the "practice of architecture" that discusses not only conventional architectural practice, but other disciplines architecture-trained people sometimes end up in, such as urban design, project management, development, set design, graphic design, etc, with inks to the appropriate wikipedia entries.

Jun 29, 07 1:29 pm

Orhan you are completely right, I feel bad for not having noticed it. Can you help flesh out the outline??
A call out to Archinecters, we need info for:
Africa
Asia
The Middle East
The Americas (both the native cities and architecture and how much later European styles were developed and eventually changed to form a unique body of work outside of the north)

Jun 29, 07 1:51 pm

any world historians out there?

Jun 29, 07 2:34 pm
b3tadine[sutures]

this is all good for the "gear head" but if this is an attempt at educating the public, then the idea of what an architect can do for the public and why we are necessary is of paramount importance. explain; NCARB, AIA, AFH, and other bodies, explain services, and what makes us different from the general contractor, and builder douches, and how design build can benefit the client, what is LEED, what is green building, why is it important?????

Jun 29, 07 2:48 pm

yeah. i was thinking that earlier, beta, but didn't know exactly how it should be approached. definitely should be at the beginning.

Jun 29, 07 2:49 pm
strlt_typ
Do we agree with the outline in Wikipedia?:

Intro/Description

1 The Architect

2 Theory of Architecture
2.1 Historic treatises
2.2 Modern concepts of architecture

3 History
3.1 Origins and the ancient world
3.2 The Medieval builder
3.3 Renaissance and the architect
3.4 The Industrial Revolution
3.5 Modernism and reaction
3.6 Per Correl and 3DH

4 See also
5 References

Jun 29, 07 2:55 pm
xtbl

ha ha ha ha!

Jun 29, 07 2:56 pm
KEG

dammson: that is effing hilarious- maybe I'll finally understand him if there is a wiki about his M.O.

having said that, you have summoned him and he will now tell Quilian what architecture is really about. awesome. thanks ;)

Jun 29, 07 3:21 pm

beta and steven, I agree that we should describe well the benefits of having an architect on board for any project. However, it may get too usonian-centric if we begin explaining NCARB, AIA et al on this page. Perhaps the Architecture of the United States section would be more appropriate to talk about these regulating bodies. I think that throughout the historical and theory sections we should also point out the value of an architect.

Can I suggest that as these issues come up you make changes to the outline itself?

What about the following additions to the outline incorporating items from the discussions above:

Intro/Description
(The one in Wiki is OK, but I think we could add to it).

1 The Architect
1.1 Education (very short and global with link to other page)
1.2 Profession (very short and global with link to other page)
1.2.1 The role of an Architect
1.2.1.1 Global Regulating bodies
1.2.1.2 The Role and Responsibilities of the Architect
1.2.1.3 Benefits of hiring an Architect

2 History
2.1 Origins and the ancient world
2.1.2 An Urbanizing story
2.1.2.1 Mesopotamia
2.1.2.2 Egypt
2.1.2.3 Ganges Valley
2.1.2.4 China (Xia, Qin, and Han dynasties)
2.1.2.5 Olmec and Teotihuacan in the Americas
2.2 Classical European Period: The Romans and Greeks
2.3 The European Medieval builder
2.4 Islamic Golden Age
2.5 The rise of the great pre-columbian cities: The Aztec, Hopis, Mayas, Chibchas, and Incas
2.6 Great Zimbawe cities
2.7 European Renaissance and the enlightenment
2.9 Modernism
2.10 Other Modernisms/Global Perspectives
2.8 Postmodernism
2.9 Contemporary/Global Perspectives

3 Architecture and the environment
3.1 Historical perspective
3.2 Contemporary movements

4 Theory of Architecture*
4.1 Treatises and Manifestos
4.2 Paper Architecture
4.3 Thoughts and ideas from outside of architecture
4.4 Theory today

5 See also (kick ass bibliography and links)
6 References


I think the history section still needs some help to incorporate global issues better.

Jun 30, 07 8:25 am
vado retro

do you really need to go to wikipedia to read about architecture?

Jun 30, 07 9:39 am

you probably don't need it, other people in the general public need it and use it. We ignore that fact at our own peril.

Jun 30, 07 9:56 am
vado retro

since when did PiMpInG! become a positive term????

Jun 30, 07 10:22 am

dude, are you serious? if you don't want to help just don't do it, don't nickpick the small stuff.
you remember archinect's byline was "pimpin' architecture since 1997"? It was that bygone line that I was quoting. Do I really have to go through the etymology of the word?

Jun 30, 07 10:29 am
vado retro

i am serious actually.

Jun 30, 07 11:50 am
orEqual

Wikipedia is where nitpickers go for fun.

Jun 30, 07 1:02 pm

word...

Jun 30, 07 1:13 pm

Quilian, it is much better thanks. history section looks great. a reading in itself for general education (isn't that the --pedias are for?)

re; 1.2.1.3 Benefits of hiring an Architect

i see your intention on this but somehow it has a tendency to turn the entry into a group plan-ish ad... it could be as strange as this; "benefits of knowing about architecture." could that be more engaging? and, i am saying this with a semi humorus but constructive way, like you and vado are trying to.

related sling shot;

as a licensed architect i am not a member of aia. i am quite surprised that aia itself didn't further develope the wiki page to better levels... but, then again, they perhaps already did!

Jun 30, 07 2:21 pm

or like a whole section;
"benefits of using, enjoying and building architecture."

i am sure there are better versions, but you get the idea i am trying to say.

Jun 30, 07 2:24 pm

thanks orhan,

Along with beta and steven I had a difficult time thinking trying to fit that info into the entry. What you see is my lame attempt :(

I almost feel that the benefits would become apparent throughout the entry and not necessary for them to have their own section. I does start sounding a bit like an infomercial.

I truly hope the AIA did not already take a crack at this...

Jun 30, 07 2:31 pm

not I but rather *It does start sounding..*

Jun 30, 07 2:35 pm

Quilian- I agree that getting into AIA, NCARB, IDP, etc. on this page would be too much. However, they each have their own entries already, that could be linked to in the "Also See" section. I would suggest that after the 'Architecture' entry is done, that the NCARB and IDP entries could use some pimping as well. The AIA entry seems more fleshed out, so I think that someone there has taken a crack at it, even if it was not an organized effort.

I feel that many of the suggestions for inclusion regarding salary, conditions, etc. could be better fit into the Intern Architect entry.

Regarding the education thoughts, there is already a decently fleshed out M.Arch entry, which is linked into the Professional Certification in Architecture page. However, the B.Arch entry is not linked through the same 'professional' page, which I think does a great disservice, and in addition is so insulting as to link only to the 'Vocational University' entry under the 'See also' links. Seems obvious that the architecture pages were written by people with M.Archs, not B.Archs...

Jun 30, 07 2:59 pm
oe

This is a fucking great idea. I will totally jump in and help build this.


A couple of comments,


1. TOO many sections. I appreciate linking to regulation bodies, roll of architects etc, but I dont think they need sections all thier own. This is an overview, lets be concise.

2. Thank you for making this less eurocentric, but again, too many sections? Does it make sense to organize things geographically until we get to the modern period.?

So like:

2 History
2.1 Origins and the ancient world
2.1.1 Origins
2.1.2 Mesopotamia
2.1.3 Egypt
2.1.4 Ganges Valley
2.1.5 China (Xia, Qin, and Han dynasties)
2.2. Europe
2.2.1 Classical European Period: The Romans and Greeks
2.2.2 Medieval Europe
2.2.3 Renaissance and the Enlightenment
2.3 The Islamic World
2.4 India
2.5 East Asia
2.6 Pre-colombian Civilizations
2.7 Africa
2.8 Modernism
2.8.1 Early Modernism
2.8.2 Late Modernism/Global Perspectives
2.9 Postmodernism
2.10 Contemporary


eh?

Jun 30, 07 3:03 pm
oe

^^^ clarification I dont think the 1.2.1's need a section on the main page.

Jun 30, 07 3:06 pm

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: