--- In TheNewCovenOfOliveThomas@yahoogroups.com, "rancidcheesehead"
<rancidcheesehead@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, concrete citation/documentation would need to be included
> with any submission...
>
> This could be an unrealistic expectation for anything to be done on
> Ollie because there may be information that cannot be properly
> documented or what can be documented is not necessarily accurate.
>

BTW -- apologies to the list for the formatting craziness with my last
post. Can't seem to make posts behave on YahooGroups! I find
YahooGroups to be severely limiting in general, and tire of being
spammed into oblivion besides. And push-comes-to-shove -- YG claims
everything posted here is THEIRS. If a moderator/owner gets locked out
of a group by phishers/hackers and they succeed in changing your
passwords -- your goose is cooked, especially if your original log-in
info does not match what the off-shore help desk has on file. A lot of
very good information could be lost in such fashion ...


That's another reason I thought a WIKI might prove to be appealing to
others. It could serve as a virtual compendium and archive of
everything even tangentially related to Olive. One under more
altruistic "control" than just some entity hell-bent on selling
members' personal information all over Hades or we're subjected to
endless appeals to purchase faux designer watches and male enhancement
items.

Nearly ANYTHING could eventually be linked to in such a WIKI, because
done correctly, the idea would grow like Topsy. It could well open up
entirely new areas of reference and study. There's probably untold
numbers of people who might have a degree of knowledge or expertise in
an area or on another person that can be linked to the overall subject
(i.e., Olive). For example, someone might be a fan of Olive's, but not
feel knowledgeable enough to post anything specifically about her or
her near circle. They might instead be an expert and/or collector on
mercury lighting of silent-era cinema; there might just be a spot
tucked away inside a reference to Olive or her milieu that their own
info/article could be linked to ...

Yes, the issue of verification and documentation will probably always
be present, as it is with every WIKI, after all. Actually, it's an
ongoing issue for ANY study of history of any sort -- printed,
ethereal/internet-based, or otherwise.

Perhaps a tag of "disputed", "inconclusive", "in review",
"conjectured, based on X" or such could be placed at the top of such
entries? That'd still give material for viewers to ruminate on, and
could maybe even serve to spur someone new to the whole OT thing (or
researching and archiving altogether) to investigate for themselves
what possibility could properly fill the blank -- thus perpetuating
new researching blood into the mix.

I was just trying to think of a way where many people could get their
"day in the sun", nobody really "cashes in" on a subject that many of
us would love to know more about, there could be a willing sharing of
knowledge by like minds, history (which of course can always be
rewritten as more concrete information becomes available or fallacies
are dispelled with the passing of time) might be preserved by
more than just one source -- that sort of thing ...

Happy New Years to you, RCH, and to everyone else here! :)