Talk:Dictionary of National Biography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, probably no one will see this, but does anyone know if the older parts of the Dictionary of National Biography are under copyright? It would be a useful source for articles, if not. john 00:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alas, the new on-line edition is only fully compatible with Microsoft's Internet Explorer and with Netscape browsers. Opera returns error messages about non-standard Java, and though I can read and search for articles I cannot print them directly and the help button does not function. I assume the same problem will apply to other browsers like Mozilla and Firefox. I have taken it up with the OUP and they say that are looking into it. Apwoolrich 07:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
According to the OUP its possibly something to do with a conflict caused by a firewall, or the anti-banner setting of Opera. I have changed my Opera setting, and allow banners and whilst I can now access the help menu, the printer is not activated. I have tried it on Mozilla, and it works fine Apwoolrich 13:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a (rather dreadful) article in the Guardian today about the ODNB, talking about how various scholars have pointed to errors. The article is rather absurd, suggesting that these errors not only damn the whole ODNB project, but perhaps damn all of Oxford University press, if not threatening the reputation of the university as a whole. Should we have any of this, or what? john k 22:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a contributor to the ODNB, I feel these criticisms are not justified. Some of the pieces I wrote were done in 1994, and the machinery for making instant updates for new knowledge did not exist then. Without looking up my records I am not sure about dates, but the deadline for completing the texts was a year or two before the actual publication date, so anything new published after then will not be included in the printed version, though can be updated now in the electronic one. Also, every article was written to a predetermined length to a fixed fee, so writers were not encouraged to stray outside of these boundaries. In my own field of engineering history and biography there are several articles which might have been better,including some by me, and a handful where I have spotted minor errors of spelling and dates. We could only do our best. It is perhaps significant that some of the criticisms come from people who took no part in the project. I am modifying the text on the main page to say that there has been 'some' criticism. This seems to be in literary periodicals, I am not aware of any complaint from other areas of the humanities, science and technology. Apwoolrich 08:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, the old DNB is still available on the http://www.ancestry.com databases, but you'll either have to subscribe or use your local library. They use the 1921 edition where you can READILY see the differences and redactions. --WB2 01:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In the on-line edition of the ODNB, the differences between the old and new can readily be compared, since both the DNB and the ODNB are available. And it is the entire DNB not just the pre-copyrighted volumes. Apwoolrich 17:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition, in each new release of the online edition it will be possible to compare the text of articles to which changes have been made for that release, with the text as it appeared in previous online releases. Matthew Kilburn

Apparently, Matthew Kilburn is NPOV (No Person of Value), as you yourself appear to me Mr Apwoolrich

The ODNB welcomes constructive criticism, and as a member of staff I'd like to know exactly which corrections WB2 would like to propose. I'd appreciate it if he wrote to me at the dictionary rather than make changes to the Wikipedia article. --Matthew Kilburn 09:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Any form of consensus about the copyright status of the DNB? I am using chunks of pre-1900 stuff fairly liberally as a start-point for articles which I intend to come back to later and improve, but if this is a no-no, then I'll take them down... Hackloon 02:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • In the US (and last I heard, Wikipedia operates on US law), you can use the "pre-1900 stuff" if you have a book that's copyrighted pre-1923. If your book says something like "Copyright 1885, ..., 2003" then you shouldn't use it. Why? Because this indicates that there have been edits made to the book since the original publication, and those edits are still in copyright. Since in most cases you'll never be able to tell what those edits are, it's not safe to copy from that particular edition. If you have an electronic version, it's certainly got a recent copyright date, so you're probably out of luck. YMM, of course, V.
All is not lost if you want to write those articles anyway, however. Use the DNB as a guide for the information you're looking for from other sources, instead of just copying from it verbatim. Your article on Christopher Bainbridge, for example, is full of information that could be expanded into a really stellar article. Ken 03:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Guess I'll just have to get on and edit them into decent articles then... Thanks for that, Hackloon 03:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Hackloon went on to post at least one article (since deleted) with material straight out of the new ODNB/Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Unless the ODNB uses old DNB text--which I don't believe it does and which might then be under a new copyright--there may be some confusion over the difference between the DNB and ODNB, although it is hard to see how anyone in contact with either the print or electronic versions would fail to notice the difference. Dan Knauss 15:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On the accuracy issue, the ODNB is incomparably better than the DNB. I haven't seen anything terribly objectionable or wrong on major entries except perhaps arguably significant omitted material. On some minor entries where I happen to have a lot of obscure knowledge, I did find a number of significant errors which were duly reported and dealt with--kind of like a slow wikipedia process. I have noticed only one moderately significant entry that is written in an overly interpretative fashion, like some in the old DNB, where the author is clearly trying to push a moral evaluation of the subject-figure (e.g., he was a 'good' man). This is warranted in cases where there is significant historical opinion about a person, which ought to be mentioned and then compared with the facts as best as they can be determined. It would be interesting to know how the ODNB tried to address such POV issues.

The citations and bibliographic information in the ODNB entries are great, and the attention to financial information and family relations is a wonderful research asset. The only real structural fault (which will probably be remedied in the future) is a failure to insert all appropriate cross-links within the online ODNB and to go further with links to online sources, such as the PRO. Links leading only to the National Archives page might tip off amateurs and dinosaur scholars to the wealth of documentary information that is becoming available online for free or for small fees, but direct links to, for instance, PRO database entries, would be great. Imagine what might be possible by association with WorldCat, Google print and Amazon. Most of all I wish the ODNB would develop a search program to visually constellate all or selected ODNB entries based on their relationship as indicated by crosslinks. Dan Knauss 16:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Disk set

I have the thing on a CD set if anyone needs access Brookie:the wind in the grass 09:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So do I, but any text on it published post 1934 is covered by copyright. It can be argued that anything taken from this disk is also copyright as it is a nrw publiction published very recently, but what the acutual legal position is under European law is, I do not know. Many of biographies from DNB were taken as the basis for biographies in EB 11, and are generally reliable, if you need a download text to base a new work on Apwoolrich 09:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary of National Biography -- scope

I'm a bit surprised to see your comments about the ODNB being 'short' on sportspeople, and am not certain whether this can be considered an objective statement in the context of the article. However, it's probably right to say that ODNB never sought to include every member of parliament; holding elective (or other) office alone has never been sufficient grounds for selection in the dictionary. --Matthew Kilburn 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments -- I moved discussion here from User_talk:Mervyn. It was a first stab at trying to explain to the general reader why certain people aren't in ... Some of the reasons I see (apart from normal editorial process) are, A. continued unconscious bias, such as towards the "great and good" or churchmen over eg sport (example of omission: Wolf Barnato, 3 times winer of Le Mans) and B. deliberate choice not to be comprehensive, even in areas where comprehensiveness might be feasible, as in all MPs (a good example of a prominent MP omitted is James A. de Rothschild). We could fairly add that there has been a strong attempt to correct much bias in the new edition, esp bias towards men!. . Hope you think we can build a decent paragraph from this.
I wouldn't dispute that there is an unconscious bias, but at the same time there is a danger of exaggerating it. I expect that there are as many people who think the present dictionary includes too many sportsmen. I've added a few more sentences attempting to outline the selection procedure in a little more detail - including the idea that the nineteenth century is collaborating with th late twentieth, a definite pointer towards the character of the dictionary - and also quoting Colin Matthew's considered belief that a definitive selection couldn't be achieved. I've also added a link to the introduction to the dictionary, which is freely available online, and explains how the dictionary was written in more detail than we can achieve here. I don't claim it's perfect!Matthew Kilburn 23:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

--mervyn 14:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Westward Ho!

The 1921 (?) edition of the DNB cites this historical romance as a source of fact for several articles on the lives of Elizabethan figures. The author, Charles Kingsley, was an arch bigot. It's worth a comment, but I don't have the edition to hand.--Shtove 00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth a comment here, but not in the article. The original DNB contributors would have only cited Westward Ho! on the understanding that their readers would have known it was a work of fiction. There are several viewpoints in the original DNB (the '1921 edition' is an uncorrected reprint of the 1908-9 lightly revised edition) that may seem dated or offensive to some modern readers. The ODNB article on Kingsley provides some of the intellectual background to his anti-Catholic position, a stance explicable to many in British literary, intellectual and political life in the mid-nineteenth century, however misguided it may seem to us. --Matthew Kilburn 09:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
But why cite a work of fiction? Maybe a comment in the article could point up the criteria used by the early editors. Kingsley is still with us - he's just relocated across the Atlantic and changed his name to Dan Brown.--Shtove 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Why cite a work of fiction? All sorts of reasons. The fiction might be based on serious historical research, or might have contributed to the shaping of a popular interpretation of events, to name two. Readers of the dictionary were always expected to come to it with their critical faculties active. Kingsley's purpose as a writer was far more intellectual than Brown's, however comparable the consequences may appear! --Matthew Kilburn 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
They wouldn't get away with it on WP. Look out! There's an albino monk behind you...Shtove 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] OUP picture

Nice idea, Mervyn, but I think it's not quite right to have a picture of OUP's Walton Street offices. For a start, the editorial office of the dictionary has never been there, so it isn't the home of the project. Additionally, the dictionary pre-dates OUP's involvement with it and it's a bit odd to have the picture juxtaposed with text which largely deals with the dictionary's origins at Smith, Elder. I won't delete it straight away, but will see what else I can come up with. --Matthew Kilburn 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps a scan of the first edition title page - should be a wikipedia standard for all book articles. --mervyn 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Or a photograph of several different editions of the printed dictionary on the shelf together? --Matthew Kilburn 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a pic like that at Pauly-Wissowa ? Anyone handy with a digital camera? --mervyn 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Access to ODNB for UK Public Library members

U.K. Wikipedians may like to know (if they don’t already)

The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council of the U.K. has a Digital Initiatives programme called “Reference Online: subscription-based electronic services for English public libraries”

http://www.mla.gov.uk/

Which includes a deal on online access to ODNB.

This means that a lot of libraries are making ODNB available free to their members.

There is a list of U.K. Public Libraries at

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ac940/weblibs.html

Which includes links to their online catalogues.

They may, however, have information about access to online electronic sources on a different page.

Vernon White 09:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A list of libraries with access to the ODNB is on the ODNB website at http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/freeodnb/libraries , in many cases with a link to the relevant online resources page.--Matthew Kilburn 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone interested in scanning it?

Hi,

My library lets patrons check out the old 22-volume DNB and a search reveals that many other libraries do, as well. I'm going to check out the set, and I would be more than willing to scan a volume from my home if anyone else would be willing to jump in. I think that using OCR would probably doom the project, though. So we could follow Tim Starling's lead on Wikisource and just feature pics of the pages. Any thoughts?

Best Username Ever 09:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If the old version is out of copyright then Wikisource would be an appropriate repository. -Will Beback · † · 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think some parts of the old version would still be in copyright, but others are PD. john k 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This is because there were repeated updates over the years as more people died. I'd think that the bios for anyone who died before 1900 or so should be PD, though. john k 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The 22-volume edition at my library was published in 1917, so all of the entries in it are in the public domain. There also is a 1901-1911 and a 1911-1920 supplement which should both be ok, although scanning any supplements could wait until after the main set.--Best Username Ever 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've got them now. It's ok if no one wants to scan them, because they're still useful. Plus, my library lets me renew books indefinitely. Heh heh heh heh.--Best Username Ever 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/c/Talk%7EDictionary_of_National_Biography_686e.html"