Personally, I don't like completely-open wiki-editing rights.

I do like a more prominent way for others to suggest edits, new info, and so forth.

Pages "owned" by someone who has been away from SP for more than a set amount of time should be reclaimed by SP and given to anyone who can improve them. I took over a number of AZ/NM pages from a non-participating member about a year ago. Just ask an elf. If the owner has been away for a year, for example, then tough for him/her.

To the fellow with the Adirondacks info: just ask an elf, I bet you'll get a bunch given over to you.

@surgent: Although yes your idea would be fine. It still does not deal with the problem of active members who never touch there pages. (no offense to these guys, but I expect a lot in a page). I like the last edited idea.

Mountain Project uses the comments/conditions/beta thread at the bottom, which is helpful and is a good way to compile subjective info (e.g. gear beta). My guess is that the Wiki style approach would turn into an administration nightmare. I like the current approach of letting someone else take over pages when the current owner is unresponsive. I don't agree that a page has to be edited every 2 years to be accurate; however, if an author isn't addressing glaring omissions/errors noted by other folks that's a different story.

I don't like the proposal for having others revise/edit an authors post/page. I make changes when they are suggested and have merit. I don't want to go around editing out material I don't approve of on my authored pages.

Opposed to a wikipedia-like option. Opposed to something needing a minimum score or else changes can be made. Then we'll have a bunch of down-voters trying to snatch stuff.

That said, I think it is wise to have some sort of "suggested changes" that can be made to the owner of a page. If they are properly notified and have at least, say 90 days to incorporate the changes/additions, and they don't, they maybe it could be added/corrected. But I do think the owner should have the ability to say no to the changes or go back to their previous version and be notified of any changes made. I think the owner should show some courtesy and respond to whoever made the suggestion also.

If someone has not been active on SP for a year, then it's pretty much time to divy up their pages.

Like nader, I've always tried to respond to any suggestions about the pages and really appreciate those who contribute updates/corrections just because they want the page to be correct and helpful. And I've always tried to give credit to that person too. That's the spirit in which I believe SP was founded.

Hi there,
if i must choose i would say the open section at the bottom of the page would be the best, and why not call it "appendix" just like in books?
But i really don't see the big deal with the current sistem... If a page is abandoned i can adopt it, if not, i can contact the owner to get rights to post updates. I think the only scenario not covered is if an active member does not respond, but in that case the page could be subject to review and decision by the elves.

Above all, though, i really like the fact that i read different personalities in the pages on SP, and i would hate to lose that variety in favor of a cold but allegedly more efficient wiki.
that's my 2euro cents, and i'm open to changing idea if convinced.

That said, thanks to all of you, i consider this to be one of the best sites there are.

Fletch wrote:1) If you haven't checked into SP within 90 days, then all of your pages are up for grabs - if no one grabs them, then they remain yours, but after 90 days, you're on the clock.

That's a really short period. We've got some valued members who live the expedition life without the web access for prolonged times...

gabr1 wrote:Above all, though, i really like the fact that i read different personalities in the pages on SP, and i would hate to lose that variety in favor of a cold but allegedly more efficient wiki.

YEAH you're dead right mate!

kamil wrote:

Fletch wrote:1) If you haven't checked into SP within 90 days, then all of your pages are up for grabs - if no one grabs them, then they remain yours, but after 90 days, you're on the clock.

That's a really short period. We've got some valued members who live the expedition life without the web access for prolonged periods...

I think so too, probably one year is fair to give everyone a chance to log on to SP. If they don't it's quite certain they have moved on.

gabr1 wrote:

kamil wrote:

Fletch wrote:1) If you haven't checked into SP within 90 days, then all of your pages are up for grabs - if no one grabs them, then they remain yours, but after 90 days, you're on the clock.

That's a really short period. We've got some valued members who live the expedition life without the web access for prolonged periods...

I think so too, probably one year is fair to give everyone a chance to log on to SP. If they don't it's quite certain they have moved on.

Are you saying they should lose their rights if they don't log in for 1 year - or if they don't update the page in 1 year...? These are 2 very different things. Pages don't need to be updated every year. In fact, that would place too high a burden on page maintainers. It is a LOT of work to maintain bunch of pages and a year goes by in the blink of an eye...

I am referring to log in.
If someone does not log in for a year, that might be a fair time to decide to put pages up for adoption...

Notice he said a 1 year to login. Not 1 year to add to the page.

I don't contribute much, unless the areas are sufficiently obscure and remote, or need extra instructions to keep people on route.

But if we had full wiki, I wouldn't contribute anything.

I've done much searching of wikipedia over the years, and my take is this:

For subjects that are reasonably well-known, wikipedia is great; an author can't submit ersatz stuff on Bessel functions or Gaussians or the YDS ratings without getting lots of attention, and the changes tend to the best explanation.

On subjects that are not well-known, a lot of the wikipedia entries are absolute crap. There are few experts who can challenge the original author, and those that do, often seem to do so for ulterior motives or grudges. The comments are not in the forefront, and are easily ignored; a massively incorrect section on the geology of local mountains stood for years, despite lots of comments pleading for a change. Changes often reverted back, because so few could offer any real proof of correctness against an obstinate author.

Alas, many, if not most, of the entries on summitpost are on mountains or routes that are not well-known.
That's what gives summitpost an edge.

A more visible comments-corrections section, appeals to the elves for ownership transfers, and other tacks could resolve those issues as well as wiki-style editing. Then the disagreements are right there, highly visible, with all the raw history preserved on the front page or each mountain or route.

I sense that a lot of folks want to wage slightly emotional wars, because someone else has grabbed favorite mountains and left less-than satisfactory instructions (or maybe any instructions at all).

There are many other ways of "getting your information to the public" on summit post if you don't like a route or area description then just attach a trip report or add a route description or one of the other options available and simply make it better yourself.. try and avoid cluster maybe the highest points or hits will take priority in the search engine making your now new and improved description the first one we see in our search to find beta on that route.

I definitely think the initial owners of pages should keep the credit regardless of anything.

Some pages such as trip reports and some photo albums are based on personal experiences and I don’t think they should be considered for any changes without the explicit permission from and cooperation with the page owner if at all.

However, the pages which provide critical information and are crucial to safety of potential route undertakers were supposed to be updated with new and objective information. For instance, some of such pages contain the beta only from and for a specific time of the year instead of all seasons, so is recommended gear list. SP is not only resource for its members but anyone with internet access regardless of their mountaineering experience.

I’m not suggesting that the old page was supposed to be edited, especially by anyone, and especially without the owner’s consent; however, a new version of such page could be created and let the surfer choose which one is more accurate and valuable. These pages were supposed to be indexed by date, so anyone would easily recognize which one is archived and which one is new.

There would have to be a specific demand or need demonstrated by some requests (perhaps voting) to allow the new page to be created. (That’s why we have this conversation.) And perhaps the new page could be more “viki” style to prevent from locking it again by just one person.

Well, there is no way to satisfy everyone for sure.

why not have more than 1 description of the same route, or area?? and why add another source for someones negative outlook on someone elses page.. if anything allow the editor of the page power to delete negative comments.. maybe allow 3 pages on the same route. this is mostly someone lazy who wants to add there 2 cents worth with out going through the trouble of creating the page themselves... or on a popular route make it an open format let every one add there input wiki style.. but why delete a page someone else created