Please read and understand the following before posting in this forum.
Questions should be PM'd to an Editor or asked in the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
1. General
The task ultimately aims at developing a more or less comprehensive reference in regard to the Voynich Manuscript and research thereof. This can be briefly called "Voynich Manuscript Body of Knowledge" (VMBOK). This is an ultimate result which may or may not be reached in future. However, in the foreseeable period of time, the task narrows down to collecting and putting down in a coherent manner most basic and indisputable facts about the Voynich Manuscript itself. (This is designated as "VMBOK phase 1").
The difference of VMBOK (be that VMBOK on the whole or just VMBOK phase 1) from similar projects elsewhere is that information is entered into VMBOK not at anyone's personal discretion, but after a thorough community discussion and based on a community decision (expressed via the voting system). It is expected that in this way the correctness and comprehensiveness of records will be maintained.
2. Structure
VMBOK is comprised of blocks. Blocks are just sets of statements grouped together in a coherent and thematic manner. A block contains one or more statements. The purpose of working with blocks instead of individual statements is to save time and reduce overhead.
Blocks are grouped in sections. When creating a new thread, a section selection must be expressed in the prefix. Currently the following sections are in use:
VMBOK ->
- Generic
- History
- Physical material
- Palaeography
- Text
- Marginalia
- Imagery
- Misc
The "Generic" section serves as a high-level abstract, then individual sections deal with respective issues. Each section beside the "Generic" section is structured in the following way:
--> Generic
--> Issue 1
--> Issue 2
...
--> Issue N
Here "Issue 1" etc. are themed issues within the specified section, and "Generic" is a subsection for blocks not falling under any specific issue of that section.
3. Permissions
Each forum member with a
non-negative reputation may take part in proposals, discussions and polls.
4. Proposals
4.1 - Opening a proposal
A proposal is filed by opening a new thread in the VMBOK task sub-forum. Filing a proposal means that the submitter proposes to include a new block into VMBOK (or to change an existing block). The proposal contains the initial (draft) revision of the block as prepared by the submitter.
The proposed block should be phrased in the most concise manner possible and should be supported by references as may be required. To save discussion overhead, only statements likely to be approved in pack should be included into a single block. However, the multitude of statements in a block should not be extended to such degree which makes it unlikely for the block to be approved as a whole.
4.2 - Factual content
Prior to opening a proposal, the submitter should assess whether all statements of the proposed block represent confirmed facts only. Here is an example of a statement representing a confirmed fact:
- The VMS is an illustrated manuscript written on vellum.
Here is an example of a wrong statement (which should not be proposed):
- The VMS was written by Roger Bacon.
Here is an example of a disputable statement containing a hypothesis (which should not be submitted):
- The VMS contains some material authored by Roger Bacon.
The statements proposed should be statements. In other words, they should be definite. Here's an example of an indefinite statement (which should not be proposed):
- The VMS may contain some material authored by Roger Bacon.
"May contain" is pretty much the same as "may not contain", it does not represent a statement of fact, but (at most) an estimate of likelihood.
The statements should be about
facts about the VMS, not about
facts about the research of the VMS (because the latter is just outside of the scope of VMBOK phase 1). The following statement is an example of such out-of-scope:
- Researchers X, Y and Z argue that the VMS contains certain material authored by Roger Bacon.
Nor should statements examine
explanations about the VMS. The following is an example of such an out-of-scope statement:
- Researcher X's theory that the plant on folio Y represents a daisy is correct
4.3 - Titles of proposals
The title of the proposal should be a summary of the statement, when-ever possible.
If the statement is too broad for a summary, then a description of the block should be given (ie, a statement about handwriting on different pages could be summarised as
upon the distinct calligraphy present within the manuscript).
Editors reserve the right to modify titles without prior notice should they feel it necessary.
5. Discussion
Following a proposal having been filed, discussion thereof is conducted in the same thread. The submitter is welcome to edit the text of the proposed block so as to reflect the results of the discussion - by correcting, adding or deleting statements.
Participants to the discussion may argue in favour of the block (or certain statements therein) or against such. They also may propose their own revisions of the statements of interest. This is done in the thread of the statement. Off-topic remarks will be moved by editors, and constant off-topic remarks may lead to a loss of reputation that will prevent the poster from future participation in the forum.
The discussion is moderated by Editors (who are made moderators of the whole sub-forum of the task). If an Editor sees that more than one statement of the block is being substantially disputed, s/he may split the block (and the respective thread) into two (or more, as appropriate) blocks, so that those may be discussed separately.
The discussion is generally not limited in time. When an Editor sees that no substantial comments are being added no more, s/he puts the block on poll. Depending on the nature of the discussion, the poll may be of the "approve/disapprove" style or of the "approve variant 1/approve variant 2/.../approve variant N/decline all variants" style. The poll is open (i.e. it is publicly seen who voted for which option). The period of the poll is three weeks.
Decision to approve is made by the qualified majority (80% of votes). If less than 80% of votes are collected in favour of approval, this means that status quo is preserved and no changes are introduced into VMBOK.
Editors have veto right against any approval.
After the poll the thread is locked and moved into the appropriate suib-forum.
6. Incorporation Into VMBOK
Approved blocks are incorporated into VMBOK. This is technically done by Editors. The VMBOK text is maintained in a dedicated thread (or in a set of threads, as may become appropriate).
7. Re-evaluation
In the course of time it may become necessary to revoke or change any statements approved previously. The procedure is the same as described above in Articles 4-6. To avoid "ping-ponging", a statement may not be proposed for re-evaluation until six months from the date of its approval.
8. Blocks declined
A block declined (i.e. not approved in a poll) does not mean that all statements of the block are declined. The declined block consisting of several statements may be corrected (e.g. excluding the disputable statement) and proposed in modified form.
If a block of one statement is declined, that means that the statement
is declined and the latter may not be submitted again (either standalone or as part of a new block) until six months has expired from the date when the respective poll ended.
Repeated submission of a statement previously declined should be made only with sufficient reasons for that (e.g. new facts have been discovered which prove the statement and overthrow opposite statements). Such reasons should be explained when submitting a block containing a statement previously declined.
9. Editorial decision
The decision of an Editor is final in all cases. Modifications to statement blocks, or the title of the block, may be carried out
before polling opens without notification to the poster, although any major modification will be discussed beforehand.
Only Editors may accept a statement for voting and post the poll.
The process for accepting volunteers as Editors is the same as in the Peer-Review system.