Thanks Esther. I like the idea of little big histories. As far as big big histories go, one worry is that each individual is composing their own individual take on big history and publishing them as books (Castillo, Spier, Christian) or websites (Chaisson). Is the goal to radiate out as individuals like that? Wouldn't it be great to figure out a systematic way to collaboratively build a consensus? Has anyone pursued the idea of growing big history as a wiki?

OK, I think Citizendium may be the place to do a big history wiki. Specifically, I'm thinking of starting a little big history, Big History of the Mind, there. The advantage of Citizendium over Wikipedia is that Citizendium articles are not about the field, like in wikipedia tends to be, but are the actual scholarly content of the field, in summarized form of course. Citizendium is extensively referenced with scholarly publications, whereas Wikipedia includes citations from the popular press. Also, all contributors and editors use their real names in Citizendium, whereas in Wikipedia they tend to use aliases. Any thoughts, anyone?

That sounds really good. I didn't know about Citizendium, but is does seem like a very suitable platform for a big history wiki or wiki entry! Like Lowell, I'm looking forward to reading your entry as well!

We have received seed money for an IBHA research grant that we will be seeking to develop soon.  It is an important initiative to support especially younger scholars do research in Big History and we hope to be able to do that.