7 ms·
The idea to make an interactive version is not new and I and most probably several others already had it before reading this article. The technology is all ther
by alexvoda 11y ago
The idea to make an interactive version is not new and I and most probably several others already had it before reading this article.
The technology is all there on the web.
Just look at this: http://evolutionofweb.appspot.com/ http://evolutionofweb.appspot.com/
The issue is there is a huge amount of crisscrossing data that needs to be curated, classified, adapted and maintained.
It's a shame Wikipedia is no longer as forward thinking and reputable as they once were. They would have made a great steward of such a project. Of course we can still use the data Wikipedia has but someone still had to maintain the great parallel timeline project.
It's so unfortunate that in the end the downfall of almost all things made by groups of people comes from within those very groups. And unfortunately this phenomenon is probably not going to change very soon.
And speaking of groups. On the same timeline we could plot the lifeline of a lot of other things like organizations, construction projects, movements, etc.. And as you said events would be displayed horizontally intersecting with all those involved.
It is unfortunate that past and current approaches of teaching history at all levels do not make use of such an obvious concept. It's not super hard to figure out that things happen at the same time and influence each other. And it's not like it is impossible to use such representations without computer interactivity. Interactivity just makes it better. All history is thought as a fairy tale and emphasis is placed on knowing the exact date and time of an event instead of knowing how it relates to other contemporary and past events. All of this makes history have appeal limited to people used to thinking sequentially. Current approaches to history are impenetrable for someone who thinks about the big picture first. The common approach to history simply can't see the forest for the trees.