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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Aug 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 9 , Aug 13, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 9 , Aug 21, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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.