The only thing I'm going to add, and the thing that most (but not all) of you seem to be aware of is this: such an entry be aimed at the layperson. Not architects - they already know this stuff, and won't be looking to wikipedia anyway. Overly-technical and nit-picky stuff tends to turn a lot of people away from a lot of subjects. The great thing about wikipedia et al., is that these sources give a brief overview, with links to more information. If the person wants to learn more, they have that opportunity. I agree that there might be too many sections going on in the new plan.
I've been asked to edit other wiki's before, and what I've learned is that regardless of how much time and effort you put into it, somebody's going to come along right after you and change what you've done - just as you've done to the editor before you.
i agree, the history section needs to be more streamlined and still contain the width mentioned under #2.
architecture as a collective human endeavour/evolution. there has to be plenty of beautifully written material on it.
I'll jump in the fray-
there seems to be an urgent need to define architecture vs crap buildings, ie spec development, substandard government katrina trailers, eifs clad strip malls, sprawl and 'tuscan/provance' styled mcmansions.
I'd also add to any of the schemes a short urbanism discussion getting into figure ground, public space as defined by architecture, and all those things that most of us agree are good.
after reading the existing article (did the archinect campaign already start?), the biggest thing that jumped out is the need to clarify the education/process as pertaining to the USA. To balance it out and become more global, the UK system of A level, B level, C level or what ever needs to be shown. or just say that most countries require a professional degree, an lengthy internship, and then a licensing test before a person is called an architect.
hmm - there is a list of buildings, but no list of architects/firms...
I agree, it does seem incomplete and boring, but what exactly do you plan on changing; the content or organization, or both? Just looking at your outline and their 'Architectural history' entry, they appear to follow - roughly - the same line. Is it just a matter of linking pages up better? (In the internet age, isn't all the information out there, it's just a matter of finding it?) I'm just wondering how intensive a complete overhaul would be. The Kuhnian in me says go for it.
Just for reference, I shouldnt think the article for architecture should be any longer or have more sections than the the one for say China.
so just to update my suggestion,
Introduction
1 The Architect
1.1 Education
1.2 Profession
2 History
2.1 Origins and the Ancient World
2.1.1 Origins
2.1.2 Mesopotamia and Egypt
2.2. Europe
2.2.1 Classical European Period: Greece and Rome
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
2.9 Postmodernism and Present
3 Theory of Architecture
3.1 Treatises and Manifestos
3.2 Urbanism and Modern Theory
3.3 Sustainability
some time ago there was a section of "external references" at the bottom that now seem to be gone...
I remember I sort of "spammed" that section once by adding a link to a website I have about catalan and barcelonian architecture and architects, and since there wasn't a specific place to put it I created a sort of sub-section called "regional architectures references" -or something like that- divided into continents and regions and redistributed the mess of references that were there already...
one week later it was all gone... my link and everything else (from the RIBA official site to specialized sites about islamic architecture)...
so that's how Wikipedia works, if you plan to do this seriously you better find a way to "block" the entry afterwards because any 13 y.o. kid can edit the page and change your meticulously 'Architecture' definition for a pic of his "Fuck Gehry" signed t-shirt...
also, not only some parts of the present article are a little ambiguous, but some are directly wrong: In Europe, in both the Classical and Medieval periods, buildings were not attributed to specific individuals and the names of the architects frequently unknown - not true, the idea of the anonymous medieval builder that didn't become a self-conscious "architect" or "author"/"artist" until the Renaissance has been proved wrong several times.. there are tons of stuff written about medieval builders and we don't only know their names but also who collaborated with who and what were their "status" ("starchitectness" was invented by then already) - ..
and that's why I added my site about catalan architecture -which includes lots of those medieval builders with their names, their bios and their works-, because trying to explain all the architecture from all ages and all parts of the world in one article is simply impossible...
I think linking the entry to external references is way better than linking it to other unsigned and anonymous wikipedia entries.
oe, I like this simplified version. However, I think that the last part of the History could be changed to:
2.8 Modernism (1920-1970)
2.8.1 Global and other Modernist discourses
2.9 Architecture since the 1970's
These changes would:
-Use a set time period to define to the general public what we mean by 'Modernism'
-expand on that definition to show how Modernism was a broad 'style' used in unique ways by differently cultures
-talk about the many different discourses since Modernism, without labeling them
How can we maintain the page with out "blocking" others?
you can't... with all this effort you're puting into find the "definitive" 'architecture' wiki entry you better create a site of your own... there will be millions of people, who have never heard about Archinect, that will read it and edit whatever they want
I mean, Wikipedia is just the first source people use to get an idea about something... it's not necessary to be that complete and exhaustive... not even "real" encyclopedias have complete definitions about everything... that's what Google is for, you type "Great Zimbabwe cities" (huh?) and will get 5,930,000 results... 182,000,000 for "Architecture and the environment"
as Vado says "do you really need to go to wikipedia to read about architecture?".... you seem to think that the "general public" is retarded.. most people will check other results in their Google searches after the Wikipedia one.
Well were all aware of the wikipedias tenousness, I still think its worth the endeavor. If we do a decent job and save a copy it shouldnt take more than casual oversight to keep the effort alive.
Quillian ~ Yes, agreed on the ambiguousness of modernism. That will be tough. I imagine we would have to actually write it to see where the gaps are and what the most strait-forward way of categorizing things will be.
I tlooks like you guys have been busy, some of this is pretty good:
'By extension, the term "architecture" has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system. The term can be used to connote the implied architecture of abstract things such as music or mathematics, the apparent architecture of natural things, such as geological formations or the structure of biological cells, or explicitly planned architectures of human-made things such as software, computers, enterprises, and databases, in addition to buildings. In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the elements or components.
This article is about architecture as it pertains to the built environment.'
I like that, it staightens out the 'information architecture' confusion pretty well.
Medit, I only even asked the question because you proposed blocking people, which I found draconian. How did you go from that question to assuming I think the public is 'retarded'? To tell you the truth, when I search a topic I hardly ever even search outside of Wikipedia. If I just want to know the quick and dirty details it is Wikipedia and nothing else (80%), if I want to KNOW about the topic I will broaden my search (20%). Maybe I am the one that's retarded.
you probably don't need it, other people in the general public need it and use it.
this was your answer to Vado some messages above..
well, maybe you don't take the general public as being 'retarded' but what I say is that you seem to take for granted that people who are not architects or architectural historians will 'accept' whatever the Wikipedia says, when this virtual encyclopedia is known -in lets say "serious" circles: academics, universities, professional bodies, etc., but not only them- by being a collection of articles that often contain errors, and that the articles' contents change constantly, edited by who knows who, with no kind of credit or signature.. (maybe that's why "your" AIA, or the RIBA, or the french Conseil National de l'Ordre des Architectes, or whoever, have not wasted their time with this..)
so if now you say that you use Wikipedia to know the 'quick and dirty details' how you say then, in the first message of this thread, that you find the 'architecture' entry being 'incomplete and boring'?... 90% of the wiki articles are incomplete and rather vague... that's what an encyclopedia is for in the end, no? a merely introduction to a topic, no matter how incomplete and boring that intro is.
and that's why I'm saying that if you develop a thoughtful and elaborated plan -which I applaud, don't take me wrong- on how to explain to the general public what is 'Architecture' or what's the real job and task of an 'Architect' in the present society you better find a more 'secure' site to put down all this information and link your site with the Wikipedia article... - maybe you can use the Citizendium site that AP has posted? (i'm not sure how this one works though)
but if as oe says, you keep a copy and check out every now and then that the Wiki article and the outline you are designing is still more or less the same then maybe it's worth the effort, ... but you should put a "By Quilian Riano" line at the end, together with your profession -like in newspapers' opinion articles- or a little bit of your CV, so people who will read it will know who is saying what... it makes people feel that they're not being fooled and helps to have some guarantee that you're not wasting your time.
I didnt mean that the larger public needs Wiki and nothing else, I would never underestimate others in such a way. By using need I only meant that if I didn't know about architecture, Wiki would be the first place I would look (maybe even the only place), but since vado you and I know a little about the subject Wiki will be the last place we look.
The changes will not be made 'by Quilian Riano' (me), but rather by this community. What we should put is a byline about this thread, archinect, and the names of all of us that will participate on getting them done. The idea is to use the method of the wiki (the community editing) in this thread to then change the selected wiki entries.
To move this along at a good speed, let's start fleshing out the most current outline tomorrow. We should discuss the outline some more today, we can always revise it later as we move along.
Proposed schedule:
Introduction/Definition: 3 days
1 The Architect: 3 days
2 History: 12 days
3 Theory: 6 days
Links/other resources/byline: 3 days
This schedule gives us about a month to finish. We can start uploading edited sections as we finish them.
My hope is that as we start the process each section will have a different advocate that will feel strongly about it and will be willing to write a chunk so that we can all then add and edit it.
Tomorrow let's start editing the first (and probably hardest) section: Definition and Introduction to Architecture
I actually dont mind the Duomo as the opening image, (unless we can think of something better,) but can somebody find a better diagram of it? At higher res?
Q, have you ever been a prof/ teacher?
If not, you should. You have a way of keeping us organized without treating us like children. I applaud your efforts.
I actually think your assumption of how "the masses" use Wiki is very accurate. The number of times I've heard teachers [have to] tell students that "Wikipedia is not a scholarly reference" is ridiculous. Meaning, a lot of people use it as their first (and unfortunately, last) point of reference when researching something. Since this is the case, why not make it an accurate & thorough portrayal of the profession/ industry?
I'm guilty of it too. EX. I just wanted a quick overview of Turkey's Republican Party, so I wiki'd it. Now, I am going to read this book to learn more. I'm not writing a thesis on it, I'm just interested in modernism in Turkey, so I don't need to be an expert.
turkey's republican party is about to be thrown out from socialist international which had a meeting in switzerland last week. modernist tradidition goes back to 19 th century in turkey. it is speeded up post republic in 1920's with constructivist propoganda posters and buildings.
look for;
bruno taut
clemes holzheimer
hans poelzig
sedad hakki eldem
mustafa kemal ataturk
haha...Now I can add to my list of references:
1) wikipedia
2) Orhan Ayyüce (or should I say Archinect?)
Thanks Orhan! I actually got interested when I saw a blurb about the propaganda posters influencing modernism. As a bleeding heart liberal- I love reading about this stuff ;)
thanks Q!! Coincidentally, I actually just ordered Modernism and Nation-Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Studies in Modernity and National Identity)
I didn't mean to hijack your thread. If I knew others were interested in Turkish Modernism and so knowledgeable about it...then I would have started a new thread.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled Wiki-pimping..I mean editing.
Architecture (from Latin, architectura and ultimately from Greek, αρχιτεκτων, "a master builder", from αρχι- "chief, leader" and τεκτων, "builder, carpenter")[1] is the art and science of designing buildings and structures. A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment: from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating details and furniture. The term "Architecture" is also used for the profession of providing architectural services.
Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesthetic end, and the manipulation of the programmatic use of space to serve a social end. This distinguishes Architecture from the applied science of engineering which usually concentrates on the structural and feasibility aspects of design. Architectural works are also seen as cultural and political symbols and works of art.
Historical civilizations are often known primarily through their architectural achievements. Such buildings as the pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Colosseum are cultural symbols, and are an important link in public consciousness, even when scholars have discovered much about a past civilization through other means.
By extension, the term "architecture" has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system. The term can be used to connote the implied architecture of abstract things such as music or mathematics, the apparent architecture of natural things, such as geological formations or the structure of biological cells, or explicitly planned architectures of human-made things such as software, computers, enterprises, and databases, in addition to buildings. In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the elements or components.
This article is about architecture as it pertains to the built environment.
The current introduction looks OK to me. There is one phrase that I personally would add (second paragraph, first sentence, add the words and functional after the word aesthetic) but I don't want to be nit-picky.
Sidebar: I'm all for healthy debate but in order to stay productive, we should maybe keep the thread on topic and not go off too much on random arguments, don't you think? Just saying.
if i was reading this as a layperson i would be lost in the second paragraph as i would not necessarily know what aesthetic meant and would not know what program meant. of course, i guess in wikipedia you can highlight those words and make an entry for them.
I don't have a whole lot to say here, but just to add to the people who have said that wikipedia is a relevant and legitimate resource. I think the dissemenation of knowledge, the idea that knowledge is not handed down by experts but democratically (and temporally) acheived from the masses is both good and a reflection of the modern world. I don't think it should be the only resource, but no resource should ever be singular, but I think what all of you are doing right now proves that wikipedia is a valuable and modern resource.
id like to possibly help with this also... but can someone show how to make text bold or italic when posting? so people can edit in this forum, and make their corrections or additions bold?
q, i like your intentions, but the question that i think everyone needs to ask themselves is; should this stay to the facts or should it include debatable interpretations as to what architecture is or isn't??
i agree with WonderK on the addition of functionality as a key component to the description. maybe something like this?
Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesthetic end, the manipulation of the programmatic use of space to serve a social end, and the synthesis of all requirements to serve a functional end . This distinguishes Architecture from the applied science of engineering which usually concentrates on the structural and feasibility aspects of design. Architectural works are also seen as cultural and political symbols and works of art.
i agree it needs work too... im thinking along the lines of coordination efforts that are neither... like mep, random client needs, specialized building type functions... things of that nature. thats why i felt the word synthesis was appropriate, but its rather ambiguous right now
Oooh lletdownl, I like your style. How about a little creative punctuation:
Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesthetic end; the manipulation of the programmatic use of space to serve a social end; and the synthesis of all requirements to serve a functional end.
The last sentence may deserve some attention as well. Why are they political symbols? Can we do a little footnoting here? Give an example? Is that allowed?
"...and abstract elements..." should change to "and other elements..."
otherwise, the nature of the edits of paragraph 2 make sense, but we should heed vado's commentary. better to be clear.
@beta - it's an encyclopedia entry...probably not the place for opinion or debatable content.
along those lines, this phrase (jumping ahead to paragraph 3) is a bit off: Historical civilizations are often known primarily through their architectural achievements. Such buildings as the pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Colosseum are cultural symbols, and are an important link in public consciousness, even when scholars have discovered much about a past civilization through other means.
I think "primarily" should go away, and perhaps this paragraph can be slightly expanded to communicate the importance of architecture to the legacy of a people/community/nation...
AP, I agree, but how do architects like John Hejduk, Lebeus Woods, Walter Pichler, Ben Nicholson fit it with the definition of what architecture is? vado hits it on the head, and I have to agree.
What architecture IS should be relegated to the sub-topics related to periods/styles/genres and not in the first two or three paragraphs.
We need to start an archinect page on wiki... hmm, I'll try.
Ok, down at the bottom of architecture today, I've added:
The most significant development in the profession is the mainstreaming of sustainability. Following in the footsteps of 1970's icons like Malcolm Wells and Ian McHarg, architects today have finally started to integrate sustainable principals like daylighting, highly insulated walls and roofs, energy efficiency, green roofs, and water reduction into their projects. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system has been instrumental in this. Other green building rating systems include Energy Star, Green Globes, and CHPS (Collaborative for High Performance Schools).
sorry Q that I didn't leave the pleasure to you, I seem to have popped the wiki cherry for our Frankenstein user per the history page - but I couldn't resist being green
wiki hint- to make a link use double brackets around the [[subject]]
editing Wikipedia
pps. if were serious about this we should post in the discussion page before making major changes.
The only thing I'm going to add, and the thing that most (but not all) of you seem to be aware of is this: such an entry be aimed at the layperson. Not architects - they already know this stuff, and won't be looking to wikipedia anyway. Overly-technical and nit-picky stuff tends to turn a lot of people away from a lot of subjects. The great thing about wikipedia et al., is that these sources give a brief overview, with links to more information. If the person wants to learn more, they have that opportunity. I agree that there might be too many sections going on in the new plan.
I've been asked to edit other wiki's before, and what I've learned is that regardless of how much time and effort you put into it, somebody's going to come along right after you and change what you've done - just as you've done to the editor before you.
i agree, the history section needs to be more streamlined and still contain the width mentioned under #2.
architecture as a collective human endeavour/evolution. there has to be plenty of beautifully written material on it.
Who changed 'pimping' to 'editing'? I mean, I know it ain't easy, but ...
I'll jump in the fray-
there seems to be an urgent need to define architecture vs crap buildings, ie spec development, substandard government katrina trailers, eifs clad strip malls, sprawl and 'tuscan/provance' styled mcmansions.
I'd also add to any of the schemes a short urbanism discussion getting into figure ground, public space as defined by architecture, and all those things that most of us agree are good.
after reading the existing article (did the archinect campaign already start?), the biggest thing that jumped out is the need to clarify the education/process as pertaining to the USA. To balance it out and become more global, the UK system of A level, B level, C level or what ever needs to be shown. or just say that most countries require a professional degree, an lengthy internship, and then a licensing test before a person is called an architect.
hmm - there is a list of buildings, but no list of architects/firms...
Quilian,
I agree, it does seem incomplete and boring, but what exactly do you plan on changing; the content or organization, or both? Just looking at your outline and their 'Architectural history' entry, they appear to follow - roughly - the same line. Is it just a matter of linking pages up better? (In the internet age, isn't all the information out there, it's just a matter of finding it?) I'm just wondering how intensive a complete overhaul would be. The Kuhnian in me says go for it.
Just for reference, I shouldnt think the article for architecture should be any longer or have more sections than the the one for say China.
so just to update my suggestion,
Introduction
1 The Architect
1.1 Education
1.2 Profession
2 History
2.1 Origins and the Ancient World
2.1.1 Origins
2.1.2 Mesopotamia and Egypt
2.2. Europe
2.2.1 Classical European Period: Greece and Rome
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
2.9 Postmodernism and Present
3 Theory of Architecture
3.1 Treatises and Manifestos
3.2 Urbanism and Modern Theory
3.3 Sustainability
some time ago there was a section of "external references" at the bottom that now seem to be gone...
I remember I sort of "spammed" that section once by adding a link to a website I have about catalan and barcelonian architecture and architects, and since there wasn't a specific place to put it I created a sort of sub-section called "regional architectures references" -or something like that- divided into continents and regions and redistributed the mess of references that were there already...
one week later it was all gone... my link and everything else (from the RIBA official site to specialized sites about islamic architecture)...
so that's how Wikipedia works, if you plan to do this seriously you better find a way to "block" the entry afterwards because any 13 y.o. kid can edit the page and change your meticulously 'Architecture' definition for a pic of his "Fuck Gehry" signed t-shirt...
also, not only some parts of the present article are a little ambiguous, but some are directly wrong:
In Europe, in both the Classical and Medieval periods, buildings were not attributed to specific individuals and the names of the architects frequently unknown - not true, the idea of the anonymous medieval builder that didn't become a self-conscious "architect" or "author"/"artist" until the Renaissance has been proved wrong several times.. there are tons of stuff written about medieval builders and we don't only know their names but also who collaborated with who and what were their "status" ("starchitectness" was invented by then already) - ..
and that's why I added my site about catalan architecture -which includes lots of those medieval builders with their names, their bios and their works-, because trying to explain all the architecture from all ages and all parts of the world in one article is simply impossible...
I think linking the entry to external references is way better than linking it to other unsigned and anonymous wikipedia entries.
oe, I like this simplified version. However, I think that the last part of the History could be changed to:
2.8 Modernism (1920-1970)
2.8.1 Global and other Modernist discourses
2.9 Architecture since the 1970's
These changes would:
-Use a set time period to define to the general public what we mean by 'Modernism'
-expand on that definition to show how Modernism was a broad 'style' used in unique ways by differently cultures
-talk about the many different discourses since Modernism, without labeling them
wow Medit I didnt even notice those very erroneous entries. How can we maintain the page with out "blocking" others?
765 i changed the name to prevent the conversation about the word *pimping*
you can't... with all this effort you're puting into find the "definitive" 'architecture' wiki entry you better create a site of your own... there will be millions of people, who have never heard about Archinect, that will read it and edit whatever they want
I mean, Wikipedia is just the first source people use to get an idea about something... it's not necessary to be that complete and exhaustive... not even "real" encyclopedias have complete definitions about everything... that's what Google is for, you type "Great Zimbabwe cities" (huh?) and will get 5,930,000 results... 182,000,000 for "Architecture and the environment"
as Vado says "do you really need to go to wikipedia to read about architecture?".... you seem to think that the "general public" is retarded.. most people will check other results in their Google searches after the Wikipedia one.
considering the nature of wikipedia, perhaps the results of this effort should also end up in the Citizendium.
previously mentioned in the news:
2007
2006
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Architecture
Well were all aware of the wikipedias tenousness, I still think its worth the endeavor. If we do a decent job and save a copy it shouldnt take more than casual oversight to keep the effort alive.
Quillian ~ Yes, agreed on the ambiguousness of modernism. That will be tough. I imagine we would have to actually write it to see where the gaps are and what the most strait-forward way of categorizing things will be.
I tlooks like you guys have been busy, some of this is pretty good:
'By extension, the term "architecture" has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system. The term can be used to connote the implied architecture of abstract things such as music or mathematics, the apparent architecture of natural things, such as geological formations or the structure of biological cells, or explicitly planned architectures of human-made things such as software, computers, enterprises, and databases, in addition to buildings. In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the elements or components.
This article is about architecture as it pertains to the built environment.'
I like that, it staightens out the 'information architecture' confusion pretty well.
Medit, I only even asked the question because you proposed blocking people, which I found draconian. How did you go from that question to assuming I think the public is 'retarded'? To tell you the truth, when I search a topic I hardly ever even search outside of Wikipedia. If I just want to know the quick and dirty details it is Wikipedia and nothing else (80%), if I want to KNOW about the topic I will broaden my search (20%). Maybe I am the one that's retarded.
Quilian,
you probably don't need it, other people in the general public need it and use it.
this was your answer to Vado some messages above..
well, maybe you don't take the general public as being 'retarded' but what I say is that you seem to take for granted that people who are not architects or architectural historians will 'accept' whatever the Wikipedia says, when this virtual encyclopedia is known -in lets say "serious" circles: academics, universities, professional bodies, etc., but not only them- by being a collection of articles that often contain errors, and that the articles' contents change constantly, edited by who knows who, with no kind of credit or signature.. (maybe that's why "your" AIA, or the RIBA, or the french Conseil National de l'Ordre des Architectes, or whoever, have not wasted their time with this..)
so if now you say that you use Wikipedia to know the 'quick and dirty details' how you say then, in the first message of this thread, that you find the 'architecture' entry being 'incomplete and boring'?... 90% of the wiki articles are incomplete and rather vague... that's what an encyclopedia is for in the end, no? a merely introduction to a topic, no matter how incomplete and boring that intro is.
and that's why I'm saying that if you develop a thoughtful and elaborated plan -which I applaud, don't take me wrong- on how to explain to the general public what is 'Architecture' or what's the real job and task of an 'Architect' in the present society you better find a more 'secure' site to put down all this information and link your site with the Wikipedia article... - maybe you can use the Citizendium site that AP has posted? (i'm not sure how this one works though)
but if as oe says, you keep a copy and check out every now and then that the Wiki article and the outline you are designing is still more or less the same then maybe it's worth the effort, ... but you should put a "By Quilian Riano" line at the end, together with your profession -like in newspapers' opinion articles- or a little bit of your CV, so people who will read it will know who is saying what... it makes people feel that they're not being fooled and helps to have some guarantee that you're not wasting your time.
I didnt mean that the larger public needs Wiki and nothing else, I would never underestimate others in such a way. By using need I only meant that if I didn't know about architecture, Wiki would be the first place I would look (maybe even the only place), but since vado you and I know a little about the subject Wiki will be the last place we look.
The changes will not be made 'by Quilian Riano' (me), but rather by this community. What we should put is a byline about this thread, archinect, and the names of all of us that will participate on getting them done. The idea is to use the method of the wiki (the community editing) in this thread to then change the selected wiki entries.
To move this along at a good speed, let's start fleshing out the most current outline tomorrow. We should discuss the outline some more today, we can always revise it later as we move along.
Proposed schedule:
Introduction/Definition: 3 days
1 The Architect: 3 days
2 History: 12 days
3 Theory: 6 days
Links/other resources/byline: 3 days
This schedule gives us about a month to finish. We can start uploading edited sections as we finish them.
My hope is that as we start the process each section will have a different advocate that will feel strongly about it and will be willing to write a chunk so that we can all then add and edit it.
Tomorrow let's start editing the first (and probably hardest) section:
Definition and Introduction to Architecture
NY Times article on Wikipedia
Sorry. Didn't see that the article was posted above.
I actually dont mind the Duomo as the opening image, (unless we can think of something better,) but can somebody find a better diagram of it? At higher res?
of the week. good job everybody.
Q, have you ever been a prof/ teacher?
If not, you should. You have a way of keeping us organized without treating us like children. I applaud your efforts.
I actually think your assumption of how "the masses" use Wiki is very accurate. The number of times I've heard teachers [have to] tell students that "Wikipedia is not a scholarly reference" is ridiculous. Meaning, a lot of people use it as their first (and unfortunately, last) point of reference when researching something. Since this is the case, why not make it an accurate & thorough portrayal of the profession/ industry?
I'm guilty of it too. EX. I just wanted a quick overview of Turkey's Republican Party, so I wiki'd it. Now, I am going to read this book to learn more. I'm not writing a thesis on it, I'm just interested in modernism in Turkey, so I don't need to be an expert.
turkey's republican party is about to be thrown out from socialist international which had a meeting in switzerland last week. modernist tradidition goes back to 19 th century in turkey. it is speeded up post republic in 1920's with constructivist propoganda posters and buildings.
look for;
bruno taut
clemes holzheimer
hans poelzig
sedad hakki eldem
mustafa kemal ataturk
haha...Now I can add to my list of references:
1) wikipedia
2) Orhan Ayyüce (or should I say Archinect?)
Thanks Orhan! I actually got interested when I saw a blurb about the propaganda posters influencing modernism. As a bleeding heart liberal- I love reading about this stuff ;)
I'll check out your references.
WTD, thanks for your nice words. For Turkish modernism and politics you may want to read Sibel Bozdogan.
thanks Q!! Coincidentally, I actually just ordered Modernism and Nation-Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Studies in Modernity and National Identity)
I didn't mean to hijack your thread. If I knew others were interested in Turkish Modernism and so knowledgeable about it...then I would have started a new thread.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled Wiki-pimping..I mean editing.
So who is going to make the 'archinect' user for wikipedia?
to edit wikipedia
username: archinect
password: editingwiki
And let's get started:
Full current description:
Architecture (from Latin, architectura and ultimately from Greek, αρχιτεκτων, "a master builder", from αρχι- "chief, leader" and τεκτων, "builder, carpenter")[1] is the art and science of designing buildings and structures. A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment: from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating details and furniture. The term "Architecture" is also used for the profession of providing architectural services.
Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesthetic end, and the manipulation of the programmatic use of space to serve a social end. This distinguishes Architecture from the applied science of engineering which usually concentrates on the structural and feasibility aspects of design. Architectural works are also seen as cultural and political symbols and works of art.
Historical civilizations are often known primarily through their architectural achievements. Such buildings as the pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Colosseum are cultural symbols, and are an important link in public consciousness, even when scholars have discovered much about a past civilization through other means.
By extension, the term "architecture" has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system. The term can be used to connote the implied architecture of abstract things such as music or mathematics, the apparent architecture of natural things, such as geological formations or the structure of biological cells, or explicitly planned architectures of human-made things such as software, computers, enterprises, and databases, in addition to buildings. In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the elements or components.
This article is about architecture as it pertains to the built environment.
The current introduction looks OK to me. There is one phrase that I personally would add (second paragraph, first sentence, add the words and functional after the word aesthetic) but I don't want to be nit-picky.
Sidebar: I'm all for healthy debate but in order to stay productive, we should maybe keep the thread on topic and not go off too much on random arguments, don't you think? Just saying.
if i was reading this as a layperson i would be lost in the second paragraph as i would not necessarily know what aesthetic meant and would not know what program meant. of course, i guess in wikipedia you can highlight those words and make an entry for them.
I don't have a whole lot to say here, but just to add to the people who have said that wikipedia is a relevant and legitimate resource. I think the dissemenation of knowledge, the idea that knowledge is not handed down by experts but democratically (and temporally) acheived from the masses is both good and a reflection of the modern world. I don't think it should be the only resource, but no resource should ever be singular, but I think what all of you are doing right now proves that wikipedia is a valuable and modern resource.
id like to possibly help with this also... but can someone show how to make text bold or italic when posting? so people can edit in this forum, and make their corrections or additions bold?
lletdownl, check out this page. It is a great resource on how to use code to edit in archinect:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=31642_0_42_0_C
q, i like your intentions, but the question that i think everyone needs to ask themselves is; should this stay to the facts or should it include debatable interpretations as to what architecture is or isn't??
i agree with WonderK on the addition of functionality as a key component to the description. maybe something like this?
Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesthetic end, the manipulation of the programmatic use of space to serve a social end, and the synthesis of all requirements to serve a functional end . This distinguishes Architecture from the applied science of engineering which usually concentrates on the structural and feasibility aspects of design. Architectural works are also seen as cultural and political symbols and works of art.
That sentence needs work, but its getting a bit run-on aint it? What function is not aesthetic or social?
i agree it needs work too... im thinking along the lines of coordination efforts that are neither... like mep, random client needs, specialized building type functions... things of that nature. thats why i felt the word synthesis was appropriate, but its rather ambiguous right now
Oooh lletdownl, I like your style. How about a little creative punctuation:
Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesthetic end; the manipulation of the programmatic use of space to serve a social end; and the synthesis of all requirements to serve a functional end.
The last sentence may deserve some attention as well. Why are they political symbols? Can we do a little footnoting here? Give an example? Is that allowed?
define abstract element
define aesthetic
define program
define function
yes, now's the chance to break the stereotype...
on paragraph 2:
"...and abstract elements..." should change to "and other elements..."
otherwise, the nature of the edits of paragraph 2 make sense, but we should heed vado's commentary. better to be clear.
@beta - it's an encyclopedia entry...probably not the place for opinion or debatable content.
along those lines, this phrase (jumping ahead to paragraph 3) is a bit off:
Historical civilizations are often known primarily through their architectural achievements. Such buildings as the pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Colosseum are cultural symbols, and are an important link in public consciousness, even when scholars have discovered much about a past civilization through other means.
I think "primarily" should go away, and perhaps this paragraph can be slightly expanded to communicate the importance of architecture to the legacy of a people/community/nation...
while also acknowledging the importance of other types cultural artifacts, and architecture's place among them.
AP, I agree, but how do architects like John Hejduk, Lebeus Woods, Walter Pichler, Ben Nicholson fit it with the definition of what architecture is? vado hits it on the head, and I have to agree.
What architecture IS should be relegated to the sub-topics related to periods/styles/genres and not in the first two or three paragraphs.
Something tells me we arent going to answer that question on archinect this afternoon...
on to the next page!!!
We need to start an archinect page on wiki... hmm, I'll try.
Ok, down at the bottom of architecture today, I've added:
The most significant development in the profession is the mainstreaming of sustainability. Following in the footsteps of 1970's icons like Malcolm Wells and Ian McHarg, architects today have finally started to integrate sustainable principals like daylighting, highly insulated walls and roofs, energy efficiency, green roofs, and water reduction into their projects. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system has been instrumental in this. Other green building rating systems include Energy Star, Green Globes, and CHPS (Collaborative for High Performance Schools).
sorry Q that I didn't leave the pleasure to you, I seem to have popped the wiki cherry for our Frankenstein user per the history page - but I couldn't resist being green
wiki hint- to make a link use double brackets around the [[subject]]
So how do we create a new entry?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.