Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [sig] Re: cunnan, an SCA wiki

Expand Messages
  • Tom Cerul
    What task do you have in mind for these content moderators? Submissions go right in. Copy editing falls to whoever is reading it.
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 11, 2005
      What task do you have in mind for these content moderators?
      Submissions go right in. Copy editing falls to whoever is reading it.

      On 8/11/05, yanagroznaia <yanajenn@...> wrote:
      > It isn't a bad idea (one I've been mulling over myself), but we would
      > still need some content moderators.
      >
      > --Yana

      > --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, Tom Cerul <tom.cerul@g...> wrote:
      > > How about we move stuff onto Cunnan
      > http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Main_Page
      > >
      > > The open editing nature of Cunnan would allow anyone and everyone to
      > > maintain the knowledge pages or link lists.
      > >
      > > Tomislaus
    • Sfandra
      I ve never seen this site before, but right away, IMO a concern would be people editing in incorrect information, or blanket generalizations. YMMV. --Sfandra
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
        I've never seen this site before, but right away, IMO
        a concern would be people editing in incorrect
        information, or blanket generalizations. YMMV.

        --Sfandra (not going to Pennsic, but staying home for
        a week to pearl things... :D)



        > Subject: Re: Re: cunnan, an SCA wiki
        >
        > What task do you have in mind for these content
        > moderators?
        > Submissions go right in. Copy editing falls to
        > whoever is reading it.
        >
        > On 8/11/05, yanagroznaia <yanajenn@...> wrote:
        > > It isn't a bad idea (one I've been mulling over
        > myself), but we would
        > > still need some content moderators.
        > >
        > > --Yana
        >

        ******************
        Sfandra Dmitrieva iz Chernigova
        Barony of Carolingia
        Kingdom of the East
        ******************
        "Earth: The most dangerous place known to Man. Billions of humans have died there." --TarynEve, "Desert Isle" (ENTff)

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Tom Cerul
        Look out, lots of links! Sfandra, Have you ever taken a look at the Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page )? It has grown to be a very large
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
          Look out, lots of links!

          Sfandra, Have you ever taken a look at the Wikipedia (
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page )? It has grown to be a very
          large encyclopedia over the years (I started in 2002).

          Please consider these pages too:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections
          (really long, skip it if you like )

          Wiki's hit a sweet-spot in human nature where good stuff stays and
          even the worst offenders are easily undone. People can contribute as
          much time as they want and articles continually improve.

          If you'd like to try editting, here's my 'talk page' on Cunnan
          http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/User_talk:Tomislaus#SIG_experiment_box
          please stop by and say hi. After you save your changes, click the
          history button on top. This shows all the edits that have happened and
          is the spot that you'd go if you wanted to revert an article back to a
          previous version.

          Thanks for putting up with me and my upstart ideas. :)
          Tomislaus who will vanish from the modern world within the next 24 hours.

          On 8/12/05, Sfandra <seonaid13@...> wrote:
          > I've never seen this site before, but right away, IMO
          > a concern would be people editing in incorrect
          > information, or blanket generalizations. YMMV.
          > --Sfandra
          > > Subject: Re: Re: cunnan, an SCA wiki
          > > What task do you have in mind for these content
          > > moderators?
          > > Submissions go right in. Copy editing falls to
          > > whoever is reading it.
          > >
          > > On 8/11/05, yanagroznaia <yanajenn@...> wrote:
          > > > It isn't a bad idea (one I've been mulling over
          > > myself), but we would
          > > > still need some content moderators.
          > > >
          > > > --Yana
        • goldschp@tds.net
          I ll weigh in my thoughts on this. A wiki is a neat tool. I have no problem with having a SIG-related wiki, but I don t think it is a substitute for a
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
            I'll weigh in my thoughts on this.

            A wiki is a neat tool. I have no problem with having a SIG-related wiki, but I don't think it is a substitute for a moderated and refereed web page. The Knowledge Pages replaced my original links page for SIG, which at the time was a carefully compiled list of one person's effort. Sharing the load made sense because I couldn't keep up with it. But the idea was that it would remain refereed.

            I think there is a place for both a wiki and the knowledge pages. Just as there is a place for SIG-L and SIG.

            -- Paul

            > Wiki's hit a sweet-spot in human nature where good stuff stays and
            > even the worst offenders are easily undone. People can contribute as
            > much time as they want and articles continually improve.
          • Tom Cerul
            I thank you heartily for your response. Could I use you guys as practice for my advocacy of this technology? At some point I m sure I ll find myself trying
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
              I thank you heartily for your response. Could I use you guys as
              practice for my advocacy of this technology? At some point I'm sure
              I'll find myself trying to support wiki's to management at work.
              Assuming I just got a yes, I'll continue.

              I guessing that a referee/moderator is acts as a gate keeper, only
              allowing content that meets a specific criteria. This action prevents
              people from publishing bad facts such as Viking helms having horns.
              In a wiki, one can redirect bad facts and respond to them. For
              example:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#Myths_about_Vikings

              As bad (untrue) facts are responded to, the articles acquire a
              myth-busting quality which can be more educating than if the myth had
              been 'stopped at the gate'.

              I'll do some work in Cunnan relating to the SIG Knowledge pages in the
              coming weeks as a priliminary. If I'm lucky, I may manage something
              before I hit the road today.

              Tomislaus


              On 8/12/05, goldschp@... <goldschp@...> wrote:
              > I'll weigh in my thoughts on this.
              >
              > A wiki is a neat tool. I have no problem with having a SIG-related wiki, but I don't think it is a substitute for a moderated and refereed web page. The Knowledge Pages replaced my original links page for SIG, which at the time was a carefully compiled list of one person's effort. Sharing the load made sense because I couldn't keep up with it. But the idea was that it would remain refereed.
              >
              > I think there is a place for both a wiki and the knowledge pages. Just as there is a place for SIG-L and SIG.
              >
              > -- Paul
              >
              > > Wiki's hit a sweet-spot in human nature where good stuff stays and
              > > even the worst offenders are easily undone. People can contribute as
              > > much time as they want and articles continually improve.
            • Alastair Millar
              I would avoid using this like the plague. Given the nature of my job (I am a Czech- English translator specialising in archaeological, heritage and related
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 13, 2005
                I would avoid using this like the plague.

                Given the nature of my job (I am a Czech->English translator
                specialising in archaeological, heritage and related topics), I
                regularly, i.e. every day, have to use the internet to look up
                terminology, vocabulary, historical contexts etc.

                Whatever the THEORY, my actual EXPERIENCE with Wikipedia has been that
                it is not up to standard. It contains much information which is
                plagiarised from other sources on the web, and a great deal of material
                that is simply incorrect - and which has not been corrected simply
                because it falls within subject areas likely to be of interest to very
                few readers. Moreover, presumably because there is no academic rigour, a
                great deal of what might charitably be termed "Romantic" (with capital
                R) material is on there that cannot really be supported...

                As a result, I have stopped using Wikipedia altogether: it's just too
                unreliable, uneven and unbalanced.

                So... I would say that the Knowledge Pages should NOT be in an
                open-access, anyone-can-post-whatever format. Not only is the quality of
                available material an issue: so too is the danger of the relevant
                knowledge page losing its structure, or of certain areas (clothing,
                perhaps) coming to dominate entirely at the expense of less "popular"
                topics.

                Alastair
                always ready with jugs of cold water! ;-)

                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12.8.2005
              • Tom Cerul
                Alastair, thank you for your response. Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerism (see
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 21, 2005
                  Alastair, thank you for your response.

                  Wikipedia has policies to handle plagerism (see
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spotting_possible_copyright_violations
                  ).

                  I wish I knew what specifically was incorrect so that I could go fix
                  it for the next reader. The edit process is so quick that I spend
                  most of my time finding sources and references for the

                  Regarding accademic rigour, from the article "Replies to common
                  objections" in the section on Trustworthiness:
                  "Note that the three leading competing online encyclopedias have
                  disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - Britannica,
                  Encarta and Bartleby. Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias
                  forget about the disclaimers.
                  [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Sep17.html%5d
                  "
                  --from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Trustworthiness

                  In short, quality increases over time as people contribute.

                  Please accept my apologies, but I do not understand what you mean by
                  big R "Romantic" material.

                  Regarding the possible dilution of focus, I must point out that the
                  number of websites focusing on the naked human form has not at all
                  affected my ability to hunt for jobs on the web. Similiarly, I
                  propose that the profusion of clothing related pages would not obscure
                  the limited number of pages on cooking, dance or weaponry.

                  Overall, I am trying to find a place where the Slavic Interest Group
                  has space for its pages, a way to contribute small amounts of time and
                  a continuing ability to fight link rot so that large portions ot the
                  knowledge pages do not become inaccessible due to unfortunate
                  circumstances in the contributors life.

                  Respectfully,
                  Tomislaus


                  On 8/13/05, Alastair Millar <alastair@...> wrote:
                  > I would avoid using this like the plague.
                  > [...]
                  > Whatever the THEORY, my actual EXPERIENCE with Wikipedia has been that
                  > it is not up to standard. It contains much information which is
                  > plagiarised from other sources on the web, and a great deal of material
                  > that is simply incorrect - and which has not been corrected simply
                  > because it falls within subject areas likely to be of interest to very
                  > few readers. Moreover, presumably because there is no academic rigour, a
                  > great deal of what might charitably be termed "Romantic" (with capital
                  > R) material is on there that cannot really be supported...
                  >
                  > As a result, I have stopped using Wikipedia altogether: it's just too
                  > unreliable, uneven and unbalanced.
                  >
                  > So... I would say that the Knowledge Pages should NOT be in an
                  > open-access, anyone-can-post-whatever format. Not only is the quality of
                  > available material an issue: so too is the danger of the relevant
                  > knowledge page losing its structure, or of certain areas (clothing,
                  > perhaps) coming to dominate entirely at the expense of less "popular"
                  > topics.
                  >
                  > Alastair
                  > always ready with jugs of cold water! ;-)
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.