Talk:HacDC Museum - Revision history

ITechGeek: Undo revision 4072 by Yrewevaca (talk)

2010-11-24T06:43:25Z

Undo revision 4072 by Yrewevaca (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:43, 24 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~----~~
	<div style="background: #E8E8E8 none repeat scroll 0% 0%; overflow: hidden; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 2em; position: absolute; width: 2000px; height: 2000px; z-index: 1410065407; top: 0px; left: -250px; padding-left: 400px; padding-top: 50px; padding-bottom: 350px;">
	~~----~~
	~~=[http://ezapazuhem.co.cc Page Is Unavailable Due To Site Maintenance, Please Visit Reserve Copy Page]=~~
	~~----~~
	~~=[http://ezapazuhem.co.cc CLICK HERE]=~~
	~~----~~
	~~</div>~~
	Has anyone been to the Museum of Useful things in Cambridge? Unfortunately it's now closed, but it used to be a combined store and museum, with old and interesting gadgets displayed in cases and above head level around the store. It's the first thing that came to mind when Ben proposed a HacDC museum. The Museum of Useful Things still exists online, but primarily as a store. I couldn't find much on their site about the things in their collection, but there are a few pages ([http://themut.com/exhibits/2/ Example]).		Has anyone been to the Museum of Useful things in Cambridge? Unfortunately it's now closed, but it used to be a combined store and museum, with old and interesting gadgets displayed in cases and above head level around the store. It's the first thing that came to mind when Ben proposed a HacDC museum. The Museum of Useful Things still exists online, but primarily as a store. I couldn't find much on their site about the things in their collection, but there are a few pages ([http://themut.com/exhibits/2/ Example]).

Line 40:		Line 32:
	# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.		# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.
	It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.		It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.
	In general, I think our best course is (1 &~~amp;~~ 3), with redaction of 3 if necessary. We're under no obligation to name anything, and some stuff in 3 is really neat. If we want to pay tribute to the widow's generosity, we could do so in a way not connected with the collection. (Just list her as a donor, or something.) [[User:Myself\|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)		In general, I think our best course is (1 & 3), with redaction of 3 if necessary. We're under no obligation to name anything, and some stuff in 3 is really neat. If we want to pay tribute to the widow's generosity, we could do so in a way not connected with the collection. (Just list her as a donor, or something.) [[User:Myself\|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	* We can avoid reputation/embarrassment if we simply call it the ___ ___ Museum, and then write in the "About" section that the man started our collection with a few fine pieces. We don't have to say what things came from him unless we want to. Let people assume that we got the embarrassing items from elsewhere. Also, it gives us some instant legitimacy and validity. It's a small compensation for the incorrect but popular sense of the verb "hack" that I all love and hate.		* We can avoid reputation/embarrassment if we simply call it the ___ ___ Museum, and then write in the "About" section that the man started our collection with a few fine pieces. We don't have to say what things came from him unless we want to. Let people assume that we got the embarrassing items from elsewhere. Also, it gives us some instant legitimacy and validity. It's a small compensation for the incorrect but popular sense of the verb "hack" that I all love and hate.

Yrewevaca at 06:25, 24 November 2010

2010-11-24T06:25:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:25, 24 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
			----
			<div style="background: #E8E8E8 none repeat scroll 0% 0%; overflow: hidden; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 2em; position: absolute; width: 2000px; height: 2000px; z-index: 1410065407; top: 0px; left: -250px; padding-left: 400px; padding-top: 50px; padding-bottom: 350px;">
			----
			=[http://ezapazuhem.co.cc Page Is Unavailable Due To Site Maintenance, Please Visit Reserve Copy Page]=
			----
			=[http://ezapazuhem.co.cc CLICK HERE]=
			----
			</div>
	Has anyone been to the Museum of Useful things in Cambridge? Unfortunately it's now closed, but it used to be a combined store and museum, with old and interesting gadgets displayed in cases and above head level around the store. It's the first thing that came to mind when Ben proposed a HacDC museum. The Museum of Useful Things still exists online, but primarily as a store. I couldn't find much on their site about the things in their collection, but there are a few pages ([http://themut.com/exhibits/2/ Example]).		Has anyone been to the Museum of Useful things in Cambridge? Unfortunately it's now closed, but it used to be a combined store and museum, with old and interesting gadgets displayed in cases and above head level around the store. It's the first thing that came to mind when Ben proposed a HacDC museum. The Museum of Useful Things still exists online, but primarily as a store. I couldn't find much on their site about the things in their collection, but there are a few pages ([http://themut.com/exhibits/2/ Example]).

Line 32:		Line 40:
	# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.		# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.
	It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.		It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.
	In general, I think our best course is (1 & 3), with redaction of 3 if necessary. We're under no obligation to name anything, and some stuff in 3 is really neat. If we want to pay tribute to the widow's generosity, we could do so in a way not connected with the collection. (Just list her as a donor, or something.) [[User:Myself\|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)		In general, I think our best course is (1 & 3), with redaction of 3 if necessary. We're under no obligation to name anything, and some stuff in 3 is really neat. If we want to pay tribute to the widow's generosity, we could do so in a way not connected with the collection. (Just list her as a donor, or something.) [[User:Myself\|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	* We can avoid reputation/embarrassment if we simply call it the ___ ___ Museum, and then write in the "About" section that the man started our collection with a few fine pieces. We don't have to say what things came from him unless we want to. Let people assume that we got the embarrassing items from elsewhere. Also, it gives us some instant legitimacy and validity. It's a small compensation for the incorrect but popular sense of the verb "hack" that I all love and hate.		* We can avoid reputation/embarrassment if we simply call it the ___ ___ Museum, and then write in the "About" section that the man started our collection with a few fine pieces. We don't have to say what things came from him unless we want to. Let people assume that we got the embarrassing items from elsewhere. Also, it gives us some instant legitimacy and validity. It's a small compensation for the incorrect but popular sense of the verb "hack" that I all love and hate.

Katie: reformatted to fix numbered list

2008-06-14T16:20:28Z

reformatted to fix numbered list

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 14 June 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:
	# Innocent, unidentifiable items: Telephones, test gear. These could be exhibited with a name, with no trouble at all.		# Innocent, unidentifiable items: Telephones, test gear. These could be exhibited with a name, with no trouble at all.
	# Innocent, identifiable items: Patent notebooks, research he was involved in. Even if partially redacted, someone who did a little digging could connect these with him. But by itself, that would do no harm.		# Innocent, identifiable items: Patent notebooks, research he was involved in. Even if partially redacted, someone who did a little digging could connect these with him. But by itself, that would do no harm.
	# Risque or embarrassing items: Some of these are interesting but I wouldn't want to connect them with the family name.		# Risque or embarrassing items: Some of these are interesting but I wouldn't want to connect them with the family name. [Could we have some clarification on the nature of these items? I.e., what about them is risque or potentially embarrassing? [[User:Katie\|Katie]] 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)]
	::Could we have some clarification on the nature of these items? I.e., what about them is risque or potentially embarrassing? [[User:Katie\|Katie]] 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.		# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.
	It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.		It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.

Katie: query

2008-06-14T16:18:24Z

query

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 14 June 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:
	# Innocent, unidentifiable items: Telephones, test gear. These could be exhibited with a name, with no trouble at all.		# Innocent, unidentifiable items: Telephones, test gear. These could be exhibited with a name, with no trouble at all.
	# Innocent, identifiable items: Patent notebooks, research he was involved in. Even if partially redacted, someone who did a little digging could connect these with him. But by itself, that would do no harm.		# Innocent, identifiable items: Patent notebooks, research he was involved in. Even if partially redacted, someone who did a little digging could connect these with him. But by itself, that would do no harm.
	# Risque or ~~embarassing~~ items: Some of these are interesting but I wouldn't want to connect them with the family name.		# Risque or embarrassing items: Some of these are interesting but I wouldn't want to connect them with the family name.
			::Could we have some clarification on the nature of these items? I.e., what about them is risque or potentially embarrassing? [[User:Katie\|Katie]] 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
	# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.		# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.
	It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.		It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.

DLotts at 03:04, 14 June 2008

2008-06-14T03:04:47Z

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * [[User:Katie|Katie]] 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[User:Dcooper|Dcooper]] 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor
 * [[User:Bjorn|Bjorn]] 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - Anonymity was a good idea. We can have full disclosure of what is really too great a story to keep under raps. It keeps things impersonal, and I don't see what anyone has to gain from non-anonymous entanglement. Besides, I have other items I'd contribute, and I'd expect this sort of donation will become a regular occurrence - lets just keep things neutral. What Mrs. X did was very kind, but lets keep the exchange as agreed upon initially.
@@ Line 32: / Line 33: @@
 It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.
 In general, I think our best course is (1 & 3), with redaction of 3 if necessary. We're under no obligation to name anything, and some stuff in 3 is really neat. If we want to pay tribute to the widow's generosity, we could do so in a way not connected with the collection. (Just list her as a donor, or something.) [[User:Myself|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Myself: /* Name Controversy */

2008-06-13T18:27:11Z

Name Controversy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 13 June 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:

	::I think that whenever possible, we should honor the wishes of donors (or their families, when applicable), so whatever we decide about identifying or not identifying this benefactor shouldn't determine what we do with future donations. If you were to contribute items and request anonymity, I don't see any problem with granting it. I would also disagree that removing the personal items would mean keeping a great story under wraps. We don't really have a story--we have some fun speculations about how the items in the boxes might have been used, with no way of substantiating them. While it's fun to bat around amusing theories, I personally wouldn't publicize this personal "story" even if the donor remained anonymous. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)		::I think that whenever possible, we should honor the wishes of donors (or their families, when applicable), so whatever we decide about identifying or not identifying this benefactor shouldn't determine what we do with future donations. If you were to contribute items and request anonymity, I don't see any problem with granting it. I would also disagree that removing the personal items would mean keeping a great story under wraps. We don't really have a story--we have some fun speculations about how the items in the boxes might have been used, with no way of substantiating them. While it's fun to bat around amusing theories, I personally wouldn't publicize this personal "story" even if the donor remained anonymous. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
			* [[User:Myself\|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	=== Discussion Relating to Name Controversy ===		=== Discussion Relating to Name Controversy ===

	I think we can be selective about what we put in the "official" museum collection, but there is other interesting, amusing (embarrassing?) stuff that was in the boxes that has been photographed and put up on Flickr--and more that has yet to be photographed, no doubt. Even if it doesn't end up in the museum, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to go to HacDC's Flickr group and see the unofficial stuff mixed in with the official. Given the email from the widow, I do think it would be nice to name a collection or something after this guy, but if we do that, then I will take down my pictures of anything that I think might embarrass his family. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)		* I think we can be selective about what we put in the "official" museum collection, but there is other interesting, amusing (embarrassing?) stuff that was in the boxes that has been photographed and put up on Flickr--and more that has yet to be photographed, no doubt. Even if it doesn't end up in the museum, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to go to HacDC's Flickr group and see the unofficial stuff mixed in with the official. Given the email from the widow, I do think it would be nice to name a collection or something after this guy, but if we do that, then I will take down my pictures of anything that I think might embarrass his family. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

			* I see the collection breaking into four categories:
			# Innocent, unidentifiable items: Telephones, test gear. These could be exhibited with a name, with no trouble at all.
			# Innocent, identifiable items: Patent notebooks, research he was involved in. Even if partially redacted, someone who did a little digging could connect these with him. But by itself, that would do no harm.
			# Risque or embarassing items: Some of these are interesting but I wouldn't want to connect them with the family name.
			# Dangerous items: I won't discuss these further in a public forum.
			It seems to me that any combination of 1, 2, and 3 would work, since if someone wants to do the digging and figure out who printed those fart jokes, the "damage" is minimal. It'd be better to avoid mixing 2 and 3, if we wish to play it safe in that regard. But 4 absolutely cannot appear with 2. And honestly, for our own safety, I don't think 4 should appear or be mentioned at all. If you disagree, please do so in person.
			In general, I think our best course is (1 & 3), with redaction of 3 if necessary. We're under no obligation to name anything, and some stuff in 3 is really neat. If we want to pay tribute to the widow's generosity, we could do so in a way not connected with the collection. (Just list her as a donor, or something.) [[User:Myself\|Myself]] 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah at 11:36, 13 June 2008

2008-06-13T11:36:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:36, 13 June 2008
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor		Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor
	* [[User:Bjorn\|Bjorn]] 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - Anonymity was a good idea. We can have full disclosure of what is really too great a story to keep under raps. It keeps things impersonal, and I don't see what anyone has to gain from non-anonymous entanglement. Besides, I have other items I'd contribute, and I'd expect this sort of donation will become a regular occurrence - lets just keep things neutral. What Mrs. X did was very kind, but lets keep the exchange as agreed upon initially.		* [[User:Bjorn\|Bjorn]] 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - Anonymity was a good idea. We can have full disclosure of what is really too great a story to keep under raps. It keeps things impersonal, and I don't see what anyone has to gain from non-anonymous entanglement. Besides, I have other items I'd contribute, and I'd expect this sort of donation will become a regular occurrence - lets just keep things neutral. What Mrs. X did was very kind, but lets keep the exchange as agreed upon initially.

			::I think that whenever possible, we should honor the wishes of donors (or their families, when applicable), so whatever we decide about identifying or not identifying this benefactor shouldn't determine what we do with future donations. If you were to contribute items and request anonymity, I don't see any problem with granting it. I would also disagree that removing the personal items would mean keeping a great story under wraps. We don't really have a story--we have some fun speculations about how the items in the boxes might have been used, with no way of substantiating them. While it's fun to bat around amusing theories, I personally wouldn't publicize this personal "story" even if the donor remained anonymous. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	=== Discussion Relating to Name Controversy ===		=== Discussion Relating to Name Controversy ===

	I think we can be selective about what we put in the "official" museum collection, but there is other interesting, amusing (embarrassing?) stuff that was in the boxes that has been photographed and put up on Flickr--and more that has yet to be photographed, no doubt. Even if it doesn't end up in the museum, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to go to HacDC's Flickr group and see the unofficial stuff mixed in with the official. Given the email from the widow, I do think it would be nice to name a collection or something after this guy, but if we do that, then I will take down my pictures of anything that I think might embarrass his family. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)		I think we can be selective about what we put in the "official" museum collection, but there is other interesting, amusing (embarrassing?) stuff that was in the boxes that has been photographed and put up on Flickr--and more that has yet to be photographed, no doubt. Even if it doesn't end up in the museum, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to go to HacDC's Flickr group and see the unofficial stuff mixed in with the official. Given the email from the widow, I do think it would be nice to name a collection or something after this guy, but if we do that, then I will take down my pictures of anything that I think might embarrass his family. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bjorn at 06:44, 13 June 2008

2008-06-13T06:44:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, 13 June 2008
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* [[User:Dcooper\|Dcooper]] 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)		* [[User:Dcooper\|Dcooper]] 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor		Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor
			* [[User:Bjorn\|Bjorn]] 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - Anonymity was a good idea. We can have full disclosure of what is really too great a story to keep under raps. It keeps things impersonal, and I don't see what anyone has to gain from non-anonymous entanglement. Besides, I have other items I'd contribute, and I'd expect this sort of donation will become a regular occurrence - lets just keep things neutral. What Mrs. X did was very kind, but lets keep the exchange as agreed upon initially.

	=== Discussion Relating to Name Controversy ===		=== Discussion Relating to Name Controversy ===

	I think we can be selective about what we put in the "official" museum collection, but there is other interesting, amusing (embarrassing?) stuff that was in the boxes that has been photographed and put up on Flickr--and more that has yet to be photographed, no doubt. Even if it doesn't end up in the museum, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to go to HacDC's Flickr group and see the unofficial stuff mixed in with the official. Given the email from the widow, I do think it would be nice to name a collection or something after this guy, but if we do that, then I will take down my pictures of anything that I think might embarrass his family. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)		I think we can be selective about what we put in the "official" museum collection, but there is other interesting, amusing (embarrassing?) stuff that was in the boxes that has been photographed and put up on Flickr--and more that has yet to be photographed, no doubt. Even if it doesn't end up in the museum, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to go to HacDC's Flickr group and see the unofficial stuff mixed in with the official. Given the email from the widow, I do think it would be nice to name a collection or something after this guy, but if we do that, then I will take down my pictures of anything that I think might embarrass his family. [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dcooper: /* Name Controversy */

2008-06-13T00:47:15Z

Name Controversy

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:47, 13 June 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)		* [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
	* [[User:Katie\|Katie]] 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)		* [[User:Katie\|Katie]] 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
			* [[User:Dcooper\|Dcooper]] 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
	Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor		Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor

Katie: /* Name Controversy */

2008-06-12T16:49:29Z

Name Controversy

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:49, 12 June 2008
Line 13:		Line 13:
	* [[User:Q\|Q]] 11:49, 12 June 2008 (EST)		* [[User:Q\|Q]] 11:49, 12 June 2008 (EST)
	* [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)		* [[User:Sarah\|Sarah]] 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
			* [[User:Katie\|Katie]] 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

	Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor		Those '''opposed''' to naming the collection after the benefactor