Activity and credibility
Andri, Tue Jun 17 2008, 12:20AMI just made a change on the wiki a few days ago and started a discussion. I was hoping that someone would like to collaborate in improving the quality of the article but so far no one has even commented on my comments on the discussion page. It also seems that there isn't much activity on the wiki as a whole. I'm hoping this is just seasonal laziness. Is it?
Anyway, the article in discussion is the one about DRSSTCs.
The practical aspect of the article is fine, I guess (I haven't much experience in the practical field) but it lacks scientific rigour, however.
This raises a few questions regarding credibility. Given what I discovered (see discussion), I think that for the whole article to be credible it must include references. Of course, this might stifle development but it really does add quality to the article.
Of course there are some practical tidbits which really can't be found by reference, so here's my idea: Can't we add things like "Steve reports that so on and so forth"? And then this could gain some backing which would lead to "The 4hv community reports that etc.".
I hope this post isn't too scatter-minded. I've had a lot of coffee.
Re: Activity and credibility
Chris Russell, Tue Jun 17 2008, 01:14AM
There's not too much activity. I wouldn't call it laziness -- as the poll indicated, most people are either too busy or not confident enough to work on the wiki. I also think it's an issue of critical mass... if enough people start working on it, eventually people will start reading, and start realizing that they can contribute as well. Hopefully it will then catch on and become self-sustaining. We're just not there yet. More of the articles need to reach a completed or nearly completed state before people start really reading it and making contributions of their own. Once there's enough information there, it would also be nice to be able to tell people "read the wiki before posting and see if it answers your question(s)."
In general, sources are a good idea. It would be nice if we could at least link to the threads from which the information was gleaned, or at the very least, note the person who provided the information. However, in many cases, the information is scattered across dozens of threads and websites (which is why we need the wiki), and it might get a bit tedious to list every single possible reference. So, my feelings on the matter are mixed. Maybe we could take a page from wikipedia and start tagging facts that really need a reference.
Note that the wiki and the forum (but not the archives) are under identical licenses, so it is possible and even encouraged to grab relevant text and images from threads on the forum, unless they are specifically marked as copyrighted. At that point, a citation would be required, so that the original author is credited.
Chris Russell, Tue Jun 17 2008, 01:14AM
There's not too much activity. I wouldn't call it laziness -- as the poll indicated, most people are either too busy or not confident enough to work on the wiki. I also think it's an issue of critical mass... if enough people start working on it, eventually people will start reading, and start realizing that they can contribute as well. Hopefully it will then catch on and become self-sustaining. We're just not there yet. More of the articles need to reach a completed or nearly completed state before people start really reading it and making contributions of their own. Once there's enough information there, it would also be nice to be able to tell people "read the wiki before posting and see if it answers your question(s)."
In general, sources are a good idea. It would be nice if we could at least link to the threads from which the information was gleaned, or at the very least, note the person who provided the information. However, in many cases, the information is scattered across dozens of threads and websites (which is why we need the wiki), and it might get a bit tedious to list every single possible reference. So, my feelings on the matter are mixed. Maybe we could take a page from wikipedia and start tagging facts that really need a reference.
Note that the wiki and the forum (but not the archives) are under identical licenses, so it is possible and even encouraged to grab relevant text and images from threads on the forum, unless they are specifically marked as copyrighted. At that point, a citation would be required, so that the original author is credited.
Re: Activity and credibility
Andri, Tue Jun 17 2008, 01:59AM
Yes, of course it's not laziness. Sorry for calling it that.:)
Would it not help opening up the wiki? I've heard wikipedia has had much to gain from so called "good Samaritans" who are basically people with knowledge in their field who make corrections when they see errors or inaccuracies, but haven't the time or interest to become full-time contributors.
Does this perhaps not outweigh the disadvantage that is the plague of spam? Does this perchance not offer a plausible benefit until the wiki reaches critical mass?
Andri, Tue Jun 17 2008, 01:59AM
Yes, of course it's not laziness. Sorry for calling it that.:)
Would it not help opening up the wiki? I've heard wikipedia has had much to gain from so called "good Samaritans" who are basically people with knowledge in their field who make corrections when they see errors or inaccuracies, but haven't the time or interest to become full-time contributors.
Does this perhaps not outweigh the disadvantage that is the plague of spam? Does this perchance not offer a plausible benefit until the wiki reaches critical mass?
Re: Activity and credibility
Chris Russell, Thu Jun 26 2008, 12:08AM
We go through periods of open registration. We will probably have one for the first few weeks in July. The main problem is that spammers generally register many dozens of accounts at once, and then share those with other spam bots, who then use the accounts and register more of their own, so the plague of spam grows exponentially over time. On a good day, we might get a dozen edits by people to the wiki. In a similar time frame, we might have 20 articles vandalized to sell god knows what.
The main problem right now is the lack of a registration captcha. I'm hoping to add one very soon, and then perhaps registrations can stay open for some time.
Chris Russell, Thu Jun 26 2008, 12:08AM
We go through periods of open registration. We will probably have one for the first few weeks in July. The main problem is that spammers generally register many dozens of accounts at once, and then share those with other spam bots, who then use the accounts and register more of their own, so the plague of spam grows exponentially over time. On a good day, we might get a dozen edits by people to the wiki. In a similar time frame, we might have 20 articles vandalized to sell god knows what.
The main problem right now is the lack of a registration captcha. I'm hoping to add one very soon, and then perhaps registrations can stay open for some time.
Re: Activity and credibility
Dr. SSTC, Mon Jul 07 2008, 10:38AM
Is every one allowed to edit or just the mods
Dr. SSTC, Mon Jul 07 2008, 10:38AM
Is every one allowed to edit or just the mods
Re: Activity and credibility
flannelhead, Mon Jul 07 2008, 11:55AM
I believe you can get a HvWiki account by PM'ing Chris.
flannelhead, Mon Jul 07 2008, 11:55AM
I believe you can get a HvWiki account by PM'ing Chris.
Re: Activity and credibility
Dr. SSTC, Tue Jul 08 2008, 12:34AM
ooh ok pfft i wont even bother
Dr. SSTC, Tue Jul 08 2008, 12:34AM
ooh ok pfft i wont even bother
Print this page