Jump to content

We are seeking CanalWorld Wiki contributors


Paul C

Featured Posts

On other forums I inhabit ( totally different subject) there are 'libraries' of technical subjects which are 'closed' and you are unable to comment. If new knowledge becomes available due to world wide exposure then the article can be unlocked and added to.

It is important to try and retain their expertise as the training & knowledge gained in the subject has almost disappeared due to old age, infirmity & death.

 

These articles / reference topics are written by the few remaining world wide acknowledged 'experts' in the subject.

 

Originally the topics were available for addition and or modification by others but this led to anarchy. An expert wrote of his knowledge and it was challenged and even amended by people of much less knowledge as they 'knew better'.

 

It got to the stage that potential technical contributors would refuse to contribute for 'fear' of ridicule and having their work criticised and/or amended. It was found that the best way was to have 'authors' submit their proposed article/feature and it would be scrutinised/approved by a panel of experts before being posted. The post was then locked.

 

The thing to remember is that as soon as you publish a book / article or whatever, everyone now knows more than you - they know everything you know PLUS the little bit they knew before. Everyone becomes an expert and has to have their say.

 

The difficult part is :

1) getting 'experts' to write the articles

2) identifying who the 'experts' are

3) getting an 'expert' panel to approve their submissions.

 

This forum has lost a number of 'experts' over the last few years due to the bickering and non-constructive arguments over what should be a 'black & white' subjects - I don't see how a Wiki will change that.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I must say, while there have been some very positive responses in this thread, as well as via PM to myself and Paul, I have been surprised by some of the responses.

 

Its all ways very interesting to here peoples thoughts and I obviously welcome these, however as has been said this is also something which has been on the back-burned for some time and ideas have been going to and fro between those involved about what the wiki would contain or not contain as well as how it fits in with the forum.

 

Several other large forums I know of have an attached wiki, which does not detract from the discussion on the forum, not does it become a second areas for debate to take place, it works much more like wikipedia works in relationship to this forum and the wider web.

 

Yes it is a bold move to take on such a task, and yes there are areas of the current forum which could in many members view be better managed, but I feel we have a good collection of people in our membership to support the this proposed new venture and that now is as good a time as any. Onwards and upwards!

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can't say I find the idea very appealing. I don't mind putting up pictures and descriptions on the forum and then letting people ask questions and add to what I wrote. I don't claim to know everything or to have answered all the questions when I write things which is why I find the interaction so valuable

 

I have no desire to become a CWDF 'expert' with my own wiki, that feels far too pompous

Richard, I understand some of your thoughts and concerns, however I also hope I can put some of them to rest.

 

While to 'get the ball rolling' we are looking for a relatively small number of 'initial contributors' to generate some content, do some testing, and get some of the very basic structure in place we will be looking to expand this pool out once the wiki is made public, and in the long term very much hope to allow any member of the site to contribute including new members the wiki will I hope draw in. Hence the articles become a collaborative effort just like the much large wiki that is wikipedia.

 

As you yourself say, one of the issues with the current forum FAQ's and SmileyPetes thread is that it becomes out of date. With the forum its very hard to manage multi-member content and contributions, which is exactly where a wiki excels. Had the content been in a wiki it could have been updated by any number of members over the last two years, rather than being a single persons resource. The wiki software also retains a public record of all the changes, so the history of the article is kept for interest, and for instances of abuse/sabotage where changes can be rolled back with ease if required.

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Richard, I understand some of your thoughts and concerns, however I also hope I can put some of them to rest.

 

While to 'get the ball rolling' we are looking for a relatively small number of 'initial contributors' to generate some content, do some testing, and get some of the very basic structure in place we will be looking to expand this pool out once the wiki is made public, and in the long term very much hope to allow any member of the site to contribute including new members the wiki will I hope draw in. Hence the articles become a collaborative effort just like the much large wiki that is wikipedia.

 

As you yourself say, one of the issues with the current forum FAQ's and SmileyPetes thread is that it becomes out of date. With the forum its very hard to manage multi-member content and contributions, which is exactly where a wiki excels. Had the content been in a wiki it could have been updated by any number of members over the last two years, rather than being a single persons resource. The wiki software also retains a public record of all the changes, so the history of the article is kept for interest, and for instances of abuse/sabotage where changes can be rolled back with ease if required.

 

I'm quite happy to update my list of common topics... smile.png

 

I had it in mind to do it around the start of 2016, so I'll have a crack at it this weekend. It might be useful as a reference to what sort of questions the FAQ needs to address.

 

Regarding the FAQ, my thoughts are it could contain the following for each subject:

 

- A very basic description of how things work, a bit like Tony Brooks site.

- A example (or possibly two) of the kit found in a 'good practice' install on a typical narrowboat.

- Answers to common questions, o yes smile.png

 

That way it helps those who want to learn a bit on how things work, or what is likely to be used or recommended for a typical narrowboat, or those who have a problem of some sort.

 

I'm sure others have different ideas on content, but I reckon it's best to avoid making an encyclopedic reference designed to cover every variation or problem.

 

Also maybe it'd be worth tackling a topic or sub topic every week, thrash out the details of each section and what possible questions need to be addressed, then leave to whoever is doing the initial edit to fill it in how they like. That way it might lessen the burden on the contributors.

 

Anyway props to whoever voulenteered to start compiling the FAQ, it's no small undertaking!

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

Edited by smileypete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.....my thoughts are it could contain the following for each subject:

 

- A very basic description of how things work, a bit like Tony Brooks site.

- A example (or possibly two) of the kit found in a 'good practice' install on a typical narrowboat.

- Answers to common questions, o yes smile.png

 

That way it helps those who want to learn a bit on how things work, or what is likely to be used or recommended for a typical narrowboat, or those who have a problem of some sort.

 

I'm sure others have different ideas on content, but I reckon it's best to avoid making an encyclopaedic reference designed to cover every variation or problem.

 

Also maybe it'd be worth tackling a topic or sub topic every week, thrash out the details of each section and what possible questions need to be addressed, then leave to whoever is doing the initial edit to fill it in how they like. That way it might lessen the burden on the contributors.

 

Anyway props to whoever volunteered to start compiling the FAQ, it's no small undertaking!

 

 

Sounds basically exactly as I see it, it will never be 'designed to cover every variation or problem' just like wikipedia doesn't go into all detail and information on everything. but what it might and or hopefully will be is a bit of a stake in the ground for some of the ground works, on which people can then apply detail in the normal way. Or not. As they please.

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.