History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#2This is a very Western-centric view of world history to say the least.
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#3Impressive visualization, but I'd love to see it overlaid on an actual world map for geographic context.
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#4This is a very Western-centric view of world history to say the least.
I guess that's 'cause the West has the most geotagged Wikipedia articles with time attached...
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#5This is a very Western-centric view of world history to say the least.
That's exactly what I was thinking. This is more of an interesting commentary on Wikipedia articles than any kind of accurate view of world history.
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#6This is a very Western-centric view of world history to say the least.
When Tom and Gareth built the original version of this at History Hackday in London they mentioned it in their presentation (it was being filmed so I presume it's online somewhere?) - it's based on the English Wikipedia data so it's skewed to a English speaking world view.
Although even more generally European and Asian history (as academic fields) have been much more deeply studied than African history.
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#7This is a very Western-centric view of world history to say the least.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if history wasn't dominated by the West.
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#8EDIT: Yay, title's been fixed. I'll leave my post here for context.
The title isn't very accurate, or at least it assumes a lot about the reader. I expected to begin about 4 billion years ago, for the entire history of our world. Or perhaps the beginning of humans, a few million years ago. Or perhaps human civilization, a few tens of thousands of years ago. Not a measily 2500 years ago dealing with the West.
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#9ONLINE STORE:
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15
New era cap $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20
accept paypal and free shipping
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
====== ( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
Re: History of the [Western] world in 100 seconds [According to Wikipedia]
#10EDIT: Yay, title's been fixed. I'll leave my post here for context. The title isn't very accurate, or at least it assumes a lot about the reader. I expected to begin about 4 billion years ago, for the entire history of our world. Or perhaps the beginning of humans, a few million years ago. Or perhaps human civilization, a few tens of thousands of years ago. Not a measily 2500 years ago dealing with the West.
The title appears to be a play on the BBC's popular A History of the World in 100 Objects: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/.
Also the bias highlights the flaw in the underlying data which is the English version of wikipedia