We are seeking CanalWorld Wiki contributors

[BruceinSanity]

I wonder whether anybody will actually read it?

 

Looking at many threads on here folks don't (bother) to do any research - they just lob in a question.

May be that actually searching through threads is not easy on a mobile phone / whatever or is it too much effort or another reason?

 

Nor only would a wiki condense topics but would be a lot easier to search.

And when a newcomer does lob in one of the standard questions, the first response could be a link to the relevant wiki article.

[system 4-50]

I think it will destroy this forum. The reasons are on the Wiki pages 23, 46, & 97.

Do have a nice day (as defined on the Wiki page 306.)

And to lighten the tone, please consider joke no. 3,456,324.

[GoodGurl]

Smileypete has his own wiki here on this forum and i must say it is very good.

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=63494

[Delta9]

Smileypete has his own wiki here on this forum and i must say it is very good.

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=63494

Very good, but that's not a wiki...

[RLWP]

Smileypete has his own wiki here on this forum and i must say it is very good.

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=63494

 

Shame it is two years out of date. A Wiki needs maintaining as well as writing. I think I could do one for old engines as not much changes. Writing one for electrical equipment is going to be a near full time job

 

Richard

[Athy]

And a section for leisure moments for rainy days. I once had a big book entitled (Things for boys and girls to do).

I once had one called Scouting For Boys, but I nevertheless grew up normal.

[Guest]

So far I would say the idea has gone down like a bout of flatulence in a space suit.

[Paul C]

So far I would say the idea has gone down like a bout of flatulence in a space suit.

 

But to be fair, you don't have access to my PMs which would show others' who aren't so negative and are keen to help out; the discussion which has been going on for the past month or so amongst a smaller group of people; and the test wiki area which has already been created and some content added. I was expecting some criticism, almost all of the points so far have already been thought about, discussed and addressed weeks ago. So I'm not too worried about this thread, although please keep the comments forthcoming as at this stage we are keen to hear them.

[Guest]

But to be fair, you don't have access to my PMs which would show others' who aren't so negative and are keen to help out; the discussion which has been going on for the past month or so amongst a smaller group of people; and the test wiki area which has already been created and some content added. I was expecting some criticism, almost all of the points so far have already been thought about, discussed and addressed weeks ago. So I'm not too worried about this thread, although please keep the comments forthcoming as at this stage we are keen to hear them.

Clearly you are not keen at all. Your approach sounds just like what CRT get stick for.

 

We welcome your opinion but as we are 'not too worried about them' we will do it anyway because a select group,have already decided how it's going to be.

[nicknorman]

Clearly you are not keen at all. Your approach sounds just like what CRT get stick for.

We welcome your opinion but as we are 'not too worried about them' we will do it anyway because a select group,have already decided how it's going to be.

I think that is a little harsh. One often canvasses for opinion without necessarily reacting or being concerned about every such opinion if it is one that has already been thought about and discounted or allowed for. But anyway, that is irrelevant because this thread was asking for assistance. It was not asking for your opinion. So therefore, whilst you are of course entitled to express your opinion, you can't be too surprised if those that hadn't asked for it are not too worried about it.

[Guest]

I think that is a little harsh. One often canvasses for opinion without necessarily reacting or being concerned about every such opinion if it is one that has already been thought about and discounted or allowed for. But anyway, that is irrelevant because this thread was asking for assistance. It was not asking for your opinion. So therefore, whilst you are of course entitled to express your opinion, you can't be too surprised if those that hadn't asked for it are not too worried about it.

then why say continue posting?

 

You missed the point.

[Paul C]

Clearly you are not keen at all. Your approach sounds just like what CRT get stick for.

 

We welcome your opinion but as we are 'not too worried about them' we will do it anyway because a select group,have already decided how it's going to be.

 

Without getting into a circular argument: I am not worried about points which have been raised so far, that have been evaluated/discussed/addressed weeks ago. However I am open to further opinion. No doubt widening the team which is working on this will reveal more opinions; and fully launching it, more still.

 

Given the quality of information in the current Forum FAQ, the bar is set quite low so even an incomplete, poorly-implemented wiki will be an improvement. However we would obviously like it to be as good as possible.

[Guest]

Without getting into a circular argument: I am not worried about points which have been raised so far, that have been evaluated/discussed/addressed weeks ago. However I am open to further opinion. No doubt widening the team which is working on this will reveal more opinions; and fully launching it, more still.

 

Given the quality of information in the current Forum FAQ, the bar is set quite low so even an incomplete, poorly-implemented wiki will be an improvement. However we would obviously like it to be as good as possible.

Good luck with it. I have made it clear what I think.

[GoodGurl]

i think the information would be good as you won't have all the bickering of whether it is right or not, it will be a case of "i need to know this" and go look at the appropriate piece that you need to know.

Paul will there be an area for feedback once it is up?

[nicknorman]

then why say continue posting?

You missed the point.

If he'd said "stop posting about it" you'd have got all uppity about "freedom of speech", "entitled to my opinion" etc.

[Guest]

If he'd said "stop posting about it" you'd have got all uppity about "freedom of speech", "entitled to my opinion" etc.

See above, good luck with it.

[Athy]

I am surprised that this bold and ambitious project has elicited a number of negative responses. Can a reference handbook on boats and boating, compiled by experienced people (of whom we have many on CWF) and experts (of whom we have some), all conveniently together in one place for ease of access by tyros, be such a bad idea?

[John V]

I am unsure if this is a good idea or not. Yes it would be better if the main factual or informative posts in a thread were accessible without all the to-ing and fro-ing that frequently engulfs what should be factual threads. I think however clearing up such threads would be the CWDF equivalent of the Augean stables.

 

When it comes to technical "wrangling" between experts, often the exact point is of little or no interest nor any relevance to the average user of such a system.

In those cases which do you include ? or do you include both ? or do you just say "Nuts it's irrelevant" and exclude both......and more importantly who decides.

 

As someone has already said, Smiley Pete's work is an invaluable although slightly dated reference but this is the work of one person.

If you had a section like that with the entries in each section by one person acknowledged as an expert.........but who decides who that is

[Markinaboat]

If this site became like some of the Facebook boater groups eg. "Can anyone tell me where I can buy coal" or "where can I get mooring rope" then the concept would be a no brainer.

 

I agree with an earlier post that it could threaten the communication/interaction on here. But then that would depend on how the Wiki pages are marketed on here to new members. Conversely, if membership grew to such an extent (as an extreme 'London Boaters' on FB) then it may well prove useful to keep banal posts (see above in para 1) to a minimum.

 

An earlier post here on page 2 quoted a member who had put a comprehensive resource together which is a great idea for quick reference. People could be directed to it first and then return to their post thereafter thus would cut a ltd if the repetitive meat out. It would also provide an opportunity for new/revised information and experiences to update the resource list.

[Chalky]

I'm on another forum that has a library of technical articles. These are written by forum members and describe various topics e.g. How they did a particular job or a trick they found. there can be multiple articles about the same topic.

The forum is mg experience. Mgexp. Things are still debated and discussed but there's also the library.

[RLWP]

i think the information would be good as you won't have all the bickering of whether it is right or not, it will be a case of "i need to know this" and go look at the appropriate piece that you need to know.

Paul will there be an area for feedback once it is up?

 

This sounds like trying to use technology to solve a much bigger social problem. I would much prefer that the technical team dealt with the bickering and negativity on the forum rather than try to limit discussion in a Wiki.

 

For me, put your effort into moderation and shutting down the repulsive non-canal topics in 'current affairs' rather than making areas for posters to hide in. The technology of the forum is already good enough for hosting technical topics

 

Richard

[Athy]

 

 

 

For me, put your effort into moderation and shutting down the repulsive non-canal topics in 'current affairs'

That's a remarkably damning condemnation. Few people on here are interested only in boats and boating to the exclusion of all other topics. I have just had a look in the Current Affairs section and found discussions on, inter alia, sport, railways, politics and astronomy. What prompts you to dismiss all these as "repulsive"? Personally I take more interest in the first two than the last two, but why should there not be a place to talk about them?

Edited February 10, 2016 by Athy

[RLWP]

That's a remarkably damning condemnation. Few people on here are interested only in boats and boating to the exclusion of all other topics. I have just had a look in the Current Affairs section and found discussions on, inter alia, sport, railways, politics and astronomy. What prompts you to dismiss all these as "repulsive"? Personally I take more interest in the first two than the last two, but why should there not be a place to talk about them?

 

Once upon a time, those topics lived very nicely in 'The Virtual Pub' and I would contribute to them. Now they have slipped into 'Current Affairs' (which is on my ignore filter) with the anti-Eu, anti-migration, hate threads. The CA and VP sections have become totally confused.

 

And, to be pedantic, I was referring to the 'repulsive non-canal topics', not all the topics

 

I have had my say on this, I don't think I need to add any more. This thread is appealing for contributors to a Wiki, and as I'm not planning to be one I'll leave this thread to others

 

Richard

[Athy]

Your previous post was ambiguous, suggesting that you found all the Current Affairs topics repulsive. But now I see what you mean. To brand them as "hate threads" is rather judgemental, though.

[WotEver]

I'm on another forum that has a library of technical articles. These are written by forum members and describe various topics e.g. How they did a particular job or a trick they found. there can be multiple articles about the same topic.

The forum is mg experience. Mgexp. Things are still debated and discussed but there's also the library.

That exactly mirrors my experience on another forum. The wiki was full of interesting and accurate information, pertinent to the subject, and it had no effect on discussion whatsoever.

 

Tony