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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.