02-05-2025, 02:04 PM
I've been thinking about it for a while, and it feels more and more appropriate that we, as a community of Voynich researchers, collect and maintain a list of links to useful Voynich research, articles, resources etc. This would address a whole range of problems:
1) I keep hearing from people (e.g. commenters on my videos) that they would like to read more, but find the field overwhelming. Like it or not, but there's a lot of theorist drivel among Voynich writings, and newcomers lack the context to judge these. Keep in mind that Cheshire was published in a peer reviewed journal, and outlets like academia.edu further muddy the waters.
2) It has happened more times than I dare to admit that I've been looking into a topic, only to find out much later that Nick Pelling already wrote about it when I was still in high school. Yes, I know, google is your friend, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for more convenience for all. Some of the actual good research is genuinely hard to find. Tucked away in some blog post or an ancient, dilapidated website... For example, I know that Julian Bunn wrote some good things about statistics, but I don't remember what exactly. If I had an overview with links and a very brief description of the contents, I would probably make more use of these
How to proceed?
I am willing to maintain the list in the curated threads section, but it would have to be a group effort. I propose that if you have published something that should be on the list, you start by submitting your own research. A link and one or two lines of explanation. You know the best what you have written, so you're the one who's best placed to add your stuff.
The bulk of the list will of course be things written by people who aren't active here, which we can add gradually, whenever you think of it or come across it.
We will need a way to decide what should and should not be on the list, without fights emerging. A list we maintain implies that we believe the research is good, or at least worth reading for someone interested in the topic at hand. How do we determine this?
A first filter should be: no text solutions. We have separate list for those.
But what if someone submits something that's not a solution, but still so bad and flawed that I cannot in good conscience encourage people to read it? I would really see this activity as a service to researchers and newcomers alike, to help people see the forest through the trees. Part of that service is us using our experience to select the pieces of research that are most useful or informative about various categories.
There has to be some curating involved. How can we do this? I'd like to have some system figured out before we start.
So I'd like to hear your ideas, and if there are enough people interested in this to make it work.
1) I keep hearing from people (e.g. commenters on my videos) that they would like to read more, but find the field overwhelming. Like it or not, but there's a lot of theorist drivel among Voynich writings, and newcomers lack the context to judge these. Keep in mind that Cheshire was published in a peer reviewed journal, and outlets like academia.edu further muddy the waters.
2) It has happened more times than I dare to admit that I've been looking into a topic, only to find out much later that Nick Pelling already wrote about it when I was still in high school. Yes, I know, google is your friend, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for more convenience for all. Some of the actual good research is genuinely hard to find. Tucked away in some blog post or an ancient, dilapidated website... For example, I know that Julian Bunn wrote some good things about statistics, but I don't remember what exactly. If I had an overview with links and a very brief description of the contents, I would probably make more use of these
How to proceed?
I am willing to maintain the list in the curated threads section, but it would have to be a group effort. I propose that if you have published something that should be on the list, you start by submitting your own research. A link and one or two lines of explanation. You know the best what you have written, so you're the one who's best placed to add your stuff.
The bulk of the list will of course be things written by people who aren't active here, which we can add gradually, whenever you think of it or come across it.
We will need a way to decide what should and should not be on the list, without fights emerging. A list we maintain implies that we believe the research is good, or at least worth reading for someone interested in the topic at hand. How do we determine this?
A first filter should be: no text solutions. We have separate list for those.
But what if someone submits something that's not a solution, but still so bad and flawed that I cannot in good conscience encourage people to read it? I would really see this activity as a service to researchers and newcomers alike, to help people see the forest through the trees. Part of that service is us using our experience to select the pieces of research that are most useful or informative about various categories.
There has to be some curating involved. How can we do this? I'd like to have some system figured out before we start.
So I'd like to hear your ideas, and if there are enough people interested in this to make it work.
I think it'd be nice to not only include single posts and publications, but also leave a "Useful links" section listing blogs (e.g. voynich.nu's homepage).