EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Community Discussions & Forum News › Wiki Guidlines: Limitations for Posting
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wiki Guidlines: Limitations for Posting

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

A post in the gear discussion forum,Knee Bindings was exported to a wiki article The Kneebinding Scoop.  While the information is valuable and very interesting, I'm unsure of keeping this as a wiki because it is the unique contribution of one member, while wikis are intended to be collaborative.  As such, any modification of this post in a wiki is unfair to the original poster.  The correct way to create a wiki article in this case would have been to include the original post as a source and attribute it by linking.  The article should have been written to include other viewpoints and reviews in a way that changes could be made to technical aspects without changing the words of a single author, who should have been attributed as a sole source in this wiki.  In my opinion, Wiki articles that are the contribution of one member should be locked from any further modification, and should only be posted as articles with the consent of the original poster.  Alternatively, this wiki could morph into an excerpt of Rick Howell's comments surrounded by appropriate collaborative information.

 

We do not have guidelines in place yet, but I think we will need to adopt this approach soon.  This thread is to discuss what the members want to adopt as posting guidelines and limitations for wiki articles.  I need your input in order to have that feature serve the community, and limit the potential for commercial and individual abuse, and to ensure articles are relevant and collaborative.  Issues such as citing sources, authentication and interactive editing are all new for this site.   I also see the need to bring in additional moderator help to deal with the greatly expanded scope of what was once only a forum.  Your help in this is appreciated.

 

Tom


Edited by Cirquerider - Fri, 06 Feb 09 19:51:50 GMT
post #2 of 17

Agree strongly with all your specific points about this specific article; same points apply to some other articles already in the database I think.

 

This is a huge topic that I have conflicting thoughts on.  On the one hand, I think policy should be left as open ended as possible at the moment, because the software is in such a tremendous state of flux.  Looking at the feature list, I don't see much of anything Wiki related...and there is a lot that needs to be done wrt the wiki...so I think we should be careful not to invent a world of policy based on software that will change.

 

OTOH, without some basic consensus on the big issues of content creation, it will be hard to recruit more people to writing and editing articles productively.  I haven't gotten around to it quite yet, but I was planning on writing a sample article exemplifying my vision of what sort of direction this project should take.  Let me try and hit the basic issues I think we need to find consensus on sooner rather than later.

 

  • NPOV:  I think we should strive for a neutral point of view in articles.  This means, broadly speaking, that all significant viewpoints are represented and explained without any bias.  Biases includes weasel words, overt opinion, omission, etc.  There should be balance between differing views and impartiality of tone in articles.
  • Verifiability:  Essentially, this means cite your sources.  When you publish a claim that isn't common knowledge, provide a respectable source outside of Epicski (and wives' tale) that substantiates the claim or makes the claim.
  • Original Research:  I don't think there is anything wrong with OR per se for this type of site, so long as the OR meets certain tests of quality...two of which immediately precede this bullet point.  I think this is one topic where there needs to be a significant amount of discussion to build consensus.

 

 

Next I think we need to look at how to determine what is abusive behavior, and what is acceptable treatment for each group of stakeholders.

  • Bad behavior.  We don't want edit wars and the mess of bureaucratic passive aggressiveness that plague certain large wikis.  Epicski has a lot more leverage here than the truly large wikis, with many more moderators per user and much less red tape needed to check IPs, ban sockpuppets, etc.
  • Transparency.  For the same reasons you don't kick the cat the day after it scratches the couch, you don't punish users without explanation.  Public comment on such?  Against the rules to talk about bans and so on in most forums including Epicski.
  • Who owns the content?  Under what license will the content be published?  What rights does an author have to their work and works derived from it?  If Epicski is going to be selling wiki articles for monetary gain in the future, I may not be interested in participating.

 

Some things I think need to be addressed in software, pronto:

  • Discussion pages.   I read from Huddler that these are merely "turned off".  They need to be turned on.  Very hard to collaborate on a topic without an obvious location to collaborate on said topic.  Communication works most smoothly when it is direct and personal.
  • Wikify:  Without a quick, painless method of adding internal links such as the [[simple method]] used by MediaWiki, this project is going to fail really hard at being a "wiki".  Copying some other wiki markup/WYSIWYG features would be wise as well; wrt citations, templates, etc.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 

Very helpful reply Garrett.  Thanks.

post #4 of 17

Think of this, Bob Peters wrote a very accurate and interesting article about Jackson Hole and how to ski it. It's an awesome piece of good information i will want to use when I ski there.

 

So, if it becomes a wiki, what's to stop someone from coming in and rewriting parts which they seem fit whether they are correct or not?

 

I'd be really pissed if that happened and how are we going to stop it? Moderators have a difficult time with everything else without being a watchdog committee for wikis.

 

I agree with you Cirque.


Edited by Lars - Fri, 06 Feb 09 21:18:21 GMT
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 

In the case of Bob's Jackson Hole article, it can and should be edited and added to.  The original post is linked and won't change, but if someone adds depth to the article by adding a photo, or map, correcting the name of a off-piste line, or reviewing restaurants, rentals or any other aspect of Jackson Hole, the whole article becomes richer and better.  There is also the option to review the history and undo any inappropriate edits or editor.  

 

We have the ability to lock up wikis that are articles that shouldn't be changed, like the site terms and conditions and "become a supporter", or the classic articles that nolo has been porting to wikis.  My concern is taking a single post on a controversial subject and making it an article, may not be as valuable as referencing that post as part of a bigger subject.  The purpose here, as very well worded by Garrett, is to find a way to create neutral point of view articles that are verifiable, orginal and which have attributed sources for claims and opinions.

post #6 of 17

Why don't we get the bootfitters in "Ask a bootfitter.." thread to collaborate on an article? Could even invite some others - such as Mosh.  That would be interesting and would test probably every one of Garrett's bullet points on cooperation and behaviour.  Could be great entertainment if the editing pages are open too.  They'd still have their closed backroom brawling area of course.

Or maybe one of them writes something and the rest come in and comment?

post #7 of 17

You've GOT to be kidding here RIGHT GUYS?

 

I understand your points on the Wiki article but to block the THREAD itself..........Cirquerider.......this is Bogus and I plan to repost my review of this product...........if I cannot let me know and we'll discuss further.

 

Cirquerider:Even better, send me a copy of my reviews of this product..........

 

 

post #8 of 17

I don't know anything about the knee binding issue -- didn't even read the thread, yet.

 

But on the general issue of Wikis --

I think the success of Wikipedia has obscured just how hard it is to have a good Wiki.  It takes a lot of active moderating even with universal good intentions by the contributors.

 

A locked Wiki entry can be used in place of a "sticky".  That is fine, but it isn't really a being used as a Wiki per se.

 

Wikis ought to be for information that multiple people can contribute content to or reorganize.  If there isn't going to be a need or an opportunity to revise and add, there is no reason for it to be a Wiki.

 

As an example, if people are going to add their own pictures and comments in-line with Bob's JH guide, next to his discussion of the same trails, then it is a good candidate for a Wiki.  If the content is static, it ought to be a sticky.  If people add info at the end, it ought to be a plain-old thread.

 

post #9 of 17
Thread Starter 

The threads are being returned now.  EpicSki has no interest or stake in the dispute that was brought to our attention by both sides of that dispute.  We do not believe this forum is the appropriate place for the parties to conduct their dispute and reserve the right to moderate future input if it is deemed inappropriate or in vilation of our Terms of Service. 

 

Any person making legal threats or allegations against EpicSki is advised that we will terminate their membership on this forum.  EpicSki provides the platform, and you are responsible for your own posts in accordance with the Terms of Service.

post #10 of 17

Wikis need to be open.  If the article is well written and accurate there will be no need for edits.

 

Wiki discussion pages are necessary to track and collaborate edits.

 

Wikis need linking to related content in other wiki articles.

 

Wiki article titles need to be addressed.  Appears that current authors are taking credit for their entry in the title.  For example if I was to write a guide to Whiteface the title should be "Whiteface Mountain, Lake Plcaid, NY" and listed under "W".  "Jeff's guide to Whitface" listed under "J" severely limits the usefullness of the information provided.

 

Wiki search box needs to be moved up the page

post #11 of 17

I think we can have both open and closed wikis--if we want. Can't we agree amongst ourselves that closed wikis are "articles" and open wikis are "true wikis?"

 

I agree that we need to establish titling conventions and we need to find someone(s) to be our Wiki Editor(s).

 

Thanks for the suggestions. As soon as we have addressed the majority of wants and needs for the forums, we'll address wiki wants and needs.

post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post

 

I think we can have both open and closed wikis--if we want. Can't we agree amongst ourselves that closed wikis are "articles" and open wikis are "true wikis?"

 

Some of those "articles" are created (and originally from) posts in the forums.  Would it make sense in those cases to link back to the forum thread?

 

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

 

But on the general issue of Wikis --

I think the success of Wikipedia has obscured just how hard it is to have a good Wiki.  It takes a lot of active moderating even with universal good intentions by the contributors.

 ...


 

Definitely need wiki 'editors' in charge of a wiki.

The Gathering Jackson Hole 2009 was an attempt to get people to start a wiki on the gathering so everyone could add to it and edit it. You could have the meet up info in one section so people don't have to scroll through a thread and find it. Photo's could be edited.  Let's face it, digital cameras and their lack instant shutter have produced some not so great action photos.  The idea was that the best photos for the trip would get left in.  Of course the others would need a home no? That is the ones that don't make the 'magazine article' aka wiki, where do they go?

 

Maybe it's just too early in the process, or did this not make any sense so no one bought into it?

 

Quote:
 

Originally Posted by cgeib View Post

Some of those "articles" are created (and originally from) posts in the forums.  Would it make sense in those cases to link back to the forum thread?

 

Sure, is this a problem though?
 

post #14 of 17
 

Nope, a question.

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post

 

 

Some of those "articles" are created (and originally from) posts in the forums.  Would it make sense in those cases to link back to the forum thread?

 

 

Wiki should stand on it's own.  Best information from a thread boiled down to the most accurate and relevant information.  Even if it takes 10 edits to get there... so be it.

 

I also think the "Gear, Resorts & More" tab should be changed to just "Gear & More". Resorts are much more of a constant than gear is.  Maybe accommodations could fall under that tab but not a resort as a whole.  Resorts could definitely fit in to the Wiki format very nicely.  Think... trail maps, weather statistics, general resort stats, lifts, capacity, pricing, annual events, must ski and so on.  If you put up a general post asking everyone to write a wiki on their home mountain we would have a good start!  Again some would see a ton of edits... eventually you will reach a consensus. 

post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManDown View Post

 

Wikis need linking to related content in other wiki articles.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManDown View Post

  

Wiki should stand on it's own. 

 

I think I've heard this referred to as polarity 

 

post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 

How about if we start a wiki for Wiki Submittal and Editing Guidelines.  Anyone interested can start adding and editing ideas for it.  At some point we will link it in as a policy document.  I think we will ask for forum volunteers to be moderators of the wiki area since it really expands the site beyond what the current volunteer manpower can handle.  (womanpower too Trek )

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Community Discussions & Forum News › Wiki Guidlines: Limitations for Posting