Perhaps a good start is first to decide the overall framework, the following topics are off the top of my head:
Still thinking over the 2nd part of your suggestion about moving Op Risk under Section 1. I'm beginning to wonder if we are trying to merge too much into a single outline and that we should focus on theory areas / methodologies rather than the process under a particular theory / method. Our article can have a simple outline like this, with a 30,000 foot description of each method, with links to the detailed article that fleshes out the process associated with the theory / method. I the following article title
Disaster management
The stregnths of the above structure (1) hazards vs. disasters is explained, (2) the methodologies are summarized, (3) the methodologies point to separate articles that explain the detailed process behind the method, (4) summaries the Disaster Management profession from different angles. Revmachine21 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Though I feel very confident in my knowledge of policy/political side of disater management, I am not at all familiar with BCP (probably should be) - this is influencing my opinion. Furthermore, we are really only discussing a conceptual outline. We only have to agree upon the top two layers. If this will be our main article it will still be short with links to the main articles. I hence take the same stance as backburner001 and support Option 4 with the modifications. Though I do like the idea in Option 6 of only having three top headings: Mgmt Theory, Emergency services/professionals, Hazards/Disasters
Re: Hazard and Impact. The references on our main page support the model that Hazard * Vulnerability = Risk. Where 'Risk' is (depending who you ask) a likelihood of the occurance of a disaster with a given impact/size/consequence. Please add your central references to the Bibliography list (I am particularly interested in BCP).
Last, I am afraid that I will only be able to log on a few times the next two weeks. So please be bold and so forth, i.e. don't wait for me! -- Drdan 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sign your name against the option you prefer. Revmachine21 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
I have seen the term Disaster preparation being used in the categorisation. It is obviously totally wrong. The only situation where disasters are prepared are when terrorists and invading armies plot their dirty deeds. I should put up on the to-do list to exterminate the expression from wikipedia. Though the expression could be replaced by preparedness, it would be more correct to use disaster management or something similar.
In fact, the categorisation hierarchy needs to be looked over in accordance with the final result of our vote above. -- Drdan 08:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I laugh at myself when I keep returning to wiki. I should be working :)
Anyway, a couple of comments:
The use of the word 'disaster'
Classification of hazards
Changed signature
-- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Though this project is just at its start we have a huge problem in structuring it. All the central terminology is used without standard e.g disaster mgmt/emergency mgmt, preparedness/preparation, hazard/disaster.
The first term is obviously important to sort out for our project. Is it Disaster management or Emergency management? My suspicion is that disaster management is more common in academia and possibly also in Europe. Emergency management tend to refer to the 'response phase' activities, i.e. emergency services. We need to define these terms among ourselves before we get too far to do anything about it. Should we use the term 'Disaster management' or is 'Emergency management' better? Does it matter? rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now redirected disaster management to emergency management. To reflect this change in the categorisation I think that Category:Disaster should be renamed to Category:Emergency management. Any comment? -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now entered Category:Disaster and the tree starting with Category:Disaster preparation for renaming to 'Emergency management' and 'Disaster preparedness'. Follow this link to join the discussion. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm quite excited to discover this project, but wanted to check that there isn't another one covering the same area. My background is really in categorisation - back in September 2005 I did a big overhaul of the Disasters and Natural disasters categories, and today I created Category:Disasters by year, which is now a subcategory of Category:Events by year and Category:Disasters and has now subsumed all the "<YEAR> disasters" categories.
But I'm not entirely clear if I'm in the right place. I might be looking for something like "WikiProjects:Disasters", but this is the closest I've found. The name and much of the discussion seems to be focussed on disaster management and the jobs and theory behind preparing for and dealing with disasters, but the scope of the project also says it includes: "...the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards. It also include individual disastrous events, e.g. hurricane Katrina and the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s."
Would I be right to say that "the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards" is covered in Category:Natural hazards and Category:Hazards? And that "individual disastrous events" is covered by Category:Disasters? These areas would seem to overlap with history wikiprojects and wikiprojects on natural phenomena, but if this wikiproject is the right place to work on them, that would be great. So is this the right place? Carcharoth 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
How are we defining disaster? I understand it as "an emergency whose response requirements exceed the capabilities of the local response groups & agencies" - that its, one where outside help has to be brought in. -- Badger151 21:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should follow the way of Emergency management, which was receently renamed from Disaster management - if this was WikiProject Emergency management, then emergency would be easily definable. I mean, do the October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash or the PEPCON disaster count as disasters? Blood red sandman 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That make a lot of sense. I agree. -- Badger151 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's also a spectrum of scale problem. This sort of thing is a spectrum that grades gradually from a few people and a small area, to large areas and millions of people. At one end of the scale you have accidents and emergencies, and at the other end of the scale you have disasters and extinction events. The basic idea of covering what happened and how people prepare for this sort of thing is the same, though the details vary immensely with scale. Carcharoth 11:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no clearly defined structure for escalation of events. Legal definitions also vary from country to country. E.g. in New Zealand the largest event is a 'Nationally Declared Civil Defence Emergency'. Accidents (e.g. motor vehicle accidents etc) are generally outside the scope of disaster/emergency management in that routine emergency serice arrangements are capable of handling the event. You're right in that there is a scale of events - however there is not a consistent scale, and there are two types 1) the size of the event itself, such as earthquake magnitudes, and 2) the scale of the impact upon society. The same size earthquake may have significantly different impacts on two similar sized communities depending on the extent of development, building technology, legislation etc. Accident, emergency, crisis, disaster, incident - unfortunately these terms are often used interchangeably and aspects of one have muddied into each other. It might be useful to start a page just to attempt to define these terms (even just in a discussion page) before we go much further. The research definitions of disaster for example are extremely wide and variable. -- Rediguananz 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a really lengthy process around this issue when some people (myself included) wanted to change "Chernobyl accident" to Chernobyl disaster. Have a look at the talk page archives for that article if you want to see some of the arguments which came up. For the purposes of this discussion you can safely ignore the speculation/conspiracy theories about whether it was an accident at all, but the point is broader than that and the discussion might be of interest. – Kieran T ( talk | contribs) 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Haditha killings was added as under this wikiproject by Blood red sandman ( here) who I see is an active member per above. I'm a bit confused as to why this would be considered in scope. I guess the massacare/killings is a PR disaster for the US but is that the intention of the project? The article is largely about the incident (including evidence suggesting this was a massacare by US troops rather then one by a IED) and the purported coverup and reactions to the incident, not about the management of the lives of those affliated with those who were killed or injured Nil Einne 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We have a concept abbreviated to KISS ;o)
Disaster management process
Perhaps a good start is first to decide the overall framework, the following topics are off the top of my head:
Still thinking over the 2nd part of your suggestion about moving Op Risk under Section 1. I'm beginning to wonder if we are trying to merge too much into a single outline and that we should focus on theory areas / methodologies rather than the process under a particular theory / method. Our article can have a simple outline like this, with a 30,000 foot description of each method, with links to the detailed article that fleshes out the process associated with the theory / method. I the following article title
Disaster management
The stregnths of the above structure (1) hazards vs. disasters is explained, (2) the methodologies are summarized, (3) the methodologies point to separate articles that explain the detailed process behind the method, (4) summaries the Disaster Management profession from different angles. Revmachine21 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Though I feel very confident in my knowledge of policy/political side of disater management, I am not at all familiar with BCP (probably should be) - this is influencing my opinion. Furthermore, we are really only discussing a conceptual outline. We only have to agree upon the top two layers. If this will be our main article it will still be short with links to the main articles. I hence take the same stance as backburner001 and support Option 4 with the modifications. Though I do like the idea in Option 6 of only having three top headings: Mgmt Theory, Emergency services/professionals, Hazards/Disasters
Re: Hazard and Impact. The references on our main page support the model that Hazard * Vulnerability = Risk. Where 'Risk' is (depending who you ask) a likelihood of the occurance of a disaster with a given impact/size/consequence. Please add your central references to the Bibliography list (I am particularly interested in BCP).
Last, I am afraid that I will only be able to log on a few times the next two weeks. So please be bold and so forth, i.e. don't wait for me! -- Drdan 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sign your name against the option you prefer. Revmachine21 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
I have seen the term Disaster preparation being used in the categorisation. It is obviously totally wrong. The only situation where disasters are prepared are when terrorists and invading armies plot their dirty deeds. I should put up on the to-do list to exterminate the expression from wikipedia. Though the expression could be replaced by preparedness, it would be more correct to use disaster management or something similar.
In fact, the categorisation hierarchy needs to be looked over in accordance with the final result of our vote above. -- Drdan 08:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I laugh at myself when I keep returning to wiki. I should be working :)
Anyway, a couple of comments:
The use of the word 'disaster'
Classification of hazards
Changed signature
-- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Though this project is just at its start we have a huge problem in structuring it. All the central terminology is used without standard e.g disaster mgmt/emergency mgmt, preparedness/preparation, hazard/disaster.
The first term is obviously important to sort out for our project. Is it Disaster management or Emergency management? My suspicion is that disaster management is more common in academia and possibly also in Europe. Emergency management tend to refer to the 'response phase' activities, i.e. emergency services. We need to define these terms among ourselves before we get too far to do anything about it. Should we use the term 'Disaster management' or is 'Emergency management' better? Does it matter? rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now redirected disaster management to emergency management. To reflect this change in the categorisation I think that Category:Disaster should be renamed to Category:Emergency management. Any comment? -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now entered Category:Disaster and the tree starting with Category:Disaster preparation for renaming to 'Emergency management' and 'Disaster preparedness'. Follow this link to join the discussion. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm quite excited to discover this project, but wanted to check that there isn't another one covering the same area. My background is really in categorisation - back in September 2005 I did a big overhaul of the Disasters and Natural disasters categories, and today I created Category:Disasters by year, which is now a subcategory of Category:Events by year and Category:Disasters and has now subsumed all the "<YEAR> disasters" categories.
But I'm not entirely clear if I'm in the right place. I might be looking for something like "WikiProjects:Disasters", but this is the closest I've found. The name and much of the discussion seems to be focussed on disaster management and the jobs and theory behind preparing for and dealing with disasters, but the scope of the project also says it includes: "...the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards. It also include individual disastrous events, e.g. hurricane Katrina and the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s."
Would I be right to say that "the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards" is covered in Category:Natural hazards and Category:Hazards? And that "individual disastrous events" is covered by Category:Disasters? These areas would seem to overlap with history wikiprojects and wikiprojects on natural phenomena, but if this wikiproject is the right place to work on them, that would be great. So is this the right place? Carcharoth 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
How are we defining disaster? I understand it as "an emergency whose response requirements exceed the capabilities of the local response groups & agencies" - that its, one where outside help has to be brought in. -- Badger151 21:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should follow the way of Emergency management, which was receently renamed from Disaster management - if this was WikiProject Emergency management, then emergency would be easily definable. I mean, do the October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash or the PEPCON disaster count as disasters? Blood red sandman 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That make a lot of sense. I agree. -- Badger151 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's also a spectrum of scale problem. This sort of thing is a spectrum that grades gradually from a few people and a small area, to large areas and millions of people. At one end of the scale you have accidents and emergencies, and at the other end of the scale you have disasters and extinction events. The basic idea of covering what happened and how people prepare for this sort of thing is the same, though the details vary immensely with scale. Carcharoth 11:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no clearly defined structure for escalation of events. Legal definitions also vary from country to country. E.g. in New Zealand the largest event is a 'Nationally Declared Civil Defence Emergency'. Accidents (e.g. motor vehicle accidents etc) are generally outside the scope of disaster/emergency management in that routine emergency serice arrangements are capable of handling the event. You're right in that there is a scale of events - however there is not a consistent scale, and there are two types 1) the size of the event itself, such as earthquake magnitudes, and 2) the scale of the impact upon society. The same size earthquake may have significantly different impacts on two similar sized communities depending on the extent of development, building technology, legislation etc. Accident, emergency, crisis, disaster, incident - unfortunately these terms are often used interchangeably and aspects of one have muddied into each other. It might be useful to start a page just to attempt to define these terms (even just in a discussion page) before we go much further. The research definitions of disaster for example are extremely wide and variable. -- Rediguananz 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a really lengthy process around this issue when some people (myself included) wanted to change "Chernobyl accident" to Chernobyl disaster. Have a look at the talk page archives for that article if you want to see some of the arguments which came up. For the purposes of this discussion you can safely ignore the speculation/conspiracy theories about whether it was an accident at all, but the point is broader than that and the discussion might be of interest. – Kieran T ( talk | contribs) 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Haditha killings was added as under this wikiproject by Blood red sandman ( here) who I see is an active member per above. I'm a bit confused as to why this would be considered in scope. I guess the massacare/killings is a PR disaster for the US but is that the intention of the project? The article is largely about the incident (including evidence suggesting this was a massacare by US troops rather then one by a IED) and the purported coverup and reactions to the incident, not about the management of the lives of those affliated with those who were killed or injured Nil Einne 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We have a concept abbreviated to KISS ;o)
Disaster management process