PDA

View Full Version : wikipedia entry on Appalachian Trail



TedB
09-10-2004, 00:36
wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers), an online, anyone can edit encyclopedia has an entry for the Appalachian Trail (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Appalachian_Trail). I thought is was pretty interesting to see it there.

Can anyone think of some improvements? I'm kind of curious to see if this post will cause that entry to change.

TJ aka Teej
09-10-2004, 06:45
Can anyone think of some improvements?
Thanks for this, TedB! I've shared this with the at-l, I'm certain we can enhance the AT and some of the other links.

TJ

TedB
09-12-2004, 18:54
We recently started using a wiki at work as an intranet site for our group, and I like the technology. The online AT community might have a use for it too. I believe this would be ideal medium for us to collaboratively write articles. Articles being a more permanent and more complete handling of a topic than a quick (or not so quick) post on a forum. The wiki format allows for continuous improvement. With multiple people contributing to an article, each person can add something where they are most knowledgeable. Even the spelling polize can do something constructive.

To see what I'm talking about check out the demonstration website (http://at-articles.tripod.com/) I made. It isn't a working wiki, because I can't find a free web host that allows cgi scripts. At home, I installed a personal web server, and the wiki software, and built the page, and then just posted a snapshot onto the internet. Sorry about the annoying banner ads that come with free web page hosting.

So what do you think?

SGT Rock
09-12-2004, 20:20
Well actually people can submitt articles here.

TedB
09-13-2004, 00:04
Yes, there is a way to submit articles. The articles that have been submitted are very good. Here are the reasons why it could be even better.

Currently there are 14 articles. I have read at least 140 forum posts that would make the seeds of excellent articles. These ideas never made it into an article. These ideas belong in an article. We need a system that would generate 10x the number of articles we have today.

The articles we have today are generally written by a single person, at a single time, and are posted, never to be changed. We need articles that are linked together. Old articles that link to new articles when new articles are written. Articles which get updated when things change. Articles that can only be written by the contributions of multiple people. Articles that contain multiple points of view, or maybe even dueling articles if things get too heated.

If, hypothetically, somebody reads an article today, and they see 80% is excellent, and 20% could use improvement, they won't do anything. There isn't much you can do. The last thing you want to do is complain that the article could use a little improvement, instead you want to thank the author for the good work they did. We all know it is hard work, and it takes talent to write a good article. Nobody wants to put a damper on things.

I must say I have some concerns that what I'm proposing might be unappealing because it was not invented here. Or maybe nobody wants to use a website run be me (maybe not even myself :) ). I must say, I'm not pushing forward my website or my way of doing things. What I'm pushing for is results. For a collection of articles that will become valuable resource for all users of the AT. It will only happen if there is a community of people who want that too.



Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
She will be loved

--Maroon 5

trikos
09-13-2004, 01:06
This is interesting. I just got the same idea about an AT-wiki the other day. I spent a couple of hours setting one up. You can find it at http://www.vogelsang.dk/atwiki (the wiki can be a bit slow).</>Feel free to play with it and find out more about a wiki.

Wikis a very powerful when it comes to gathering information, so I would recommend going for a wiki.

I don't want to host the wiki in the long run, so perhaps it could be a part of whiteblaze? Or should it have its own domain?

-Trikos

SGT Rock
09-13-2004, 07:26
OK, lets say we did do a Wiki, what is to prevent someone from adding crap about abortion, sex, or whatever that doesn't have anything to do with what I would be worried about on the trail, but some people feel the need to discuss ad naseum on here?

trikos
09-13-2004, 07:48
Hi SGT Rock
Your concern is fair and relevant.

Eventually someone will post some 'crap' in a wiki. I guess that happens here in the forums as well.

A wiki has a few mechanisms to deal with the 'crap'. It is possible to lock some of the pages, so the pages can't be edited (usually the front page is locked). Furthermore, everyone can track changes made to the articles, so the first one who spots the 'crap' can quickly remove it. There is a history of all changes made in the wiki, so it is always possible to find and restore earlier versions of an article.

The obvious 'crap' can easily be removed. The real problem occur when someone thinks something is important and relevant for the wiki and others think it is wrong or plain crap. That is why a wiki need some kind of policy, although it doesn't resolve all problems. The wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, which could be used as a starting point.

-Trikos

SGT Rock
09-13-2004, 07:51
I guess my other concern would be spamming and as a victim of a website hacker, how this prevents a few tricks that can contain malicious links and such.

trikos
09-13-2004, 07:59
I am not sure about the spamming. I have never heard it happening to a wiki, but it probably can. I would have to look it up at wikipedia to see if they have had any problems, if they don't I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

Hacking should always be a concern. The wikipedia team do what they can to make the code secure. Obviously there is a risk. I have to ask them about their hacker history.

weary
09-13-2004, 08:41
wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers), an online, anyone can edit encyclopedia has an entry for the Appalachian Trail (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Appalachian_Trail). I thought is was pretty interesting to see it there.

Can anyone think of some improvements? I'm kind of curious to see if this post will cause that entry to change.

There are two errors in the hiking section. ALL the trail is open to local use. There are no significant rules that favor thru hiking. Even the relaxed rules against camping in the Smolies and the special campsite in Baxter apply to all long distance hikers, not just thru hikers.

Weary

TedB
09-13-2004, 11:10
There are two errors in the hiking section. ALL the trail is open to local use. There are no significant rules that favor thru hiking. Even the relaxed rules against camping in the Smolies and the special campsite in Baxter apply to all long distance hikers, not just thru hikers.

Weary

Sounds like you have a contribution to make. Go ahead and do it. Leave a comment expaining your change. If people agree with you, they will leave your change in there. If people disagree, they will simply revert to an old version, no harm done.

TedB
09-13-2004, 11:40
As Sgt. ROCK points out, a wiki will have its own set of problems, and they will be a learning process that goes with getting it up and running. I expect a new one would have a very experimental feel for the first few months or so.

What about people putting crap on there?

Anybody can put crap on WhiteBlaze, but only two people can clean it up. On a wiki, anybody can put crap on there, but anybody can clean it up. Not perfect, but seems like an improvement to me.

What about malicious links?

A wiki makes heavy use of internal links, so sneaking in an external link could be a problem. All wikis I've seen have some way of marking these external links, so you at least you get a heads up. I guess somebody
could post a malicious link on whiteblaze too.

What about spam?

Spam happens at some wiki sites sometimes. When someone sees it, they can clean it up.


The fact that there are wikis around today that are older, bigger, and more active than whiteblaze suggests that the problems that come up are manageable. By the way, I'm not in a hurry to start it, I'll be offline all of next week, enjoying the outdoors. I think more discusison is good. These are very good questions.