Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Postby gimpilator » Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:59 pm

To wiki or not to wiki? That is the question...

Lately I have heard many rumors about a coming wiki addition to SP. I would like to comment on that and hear from others.

In the business world, there's an important idea that if you have a successful model, don't change it. Structural change can jeopardize success. SummitPost is the best mountaineering resource in the world for a reason. It has a huge following and thousands of active users. In short, our structural model works. Change can be good, but I fear that structural change might take us in the wrong direction, away from what has brought us success. Many of the recent changes are excellent and I applaud the folks who have put work into those projects. Their dedication is honorable.

I am completely against this wiki idea. This is a structural change, whether it affects a section or the entire page. The additions/corrections section works fine. It would be better to display additions/corrections at the bottom of the page, below the images, so it's more visible. Incorporating a wiki would be a move in the wrong direction. It could lead to future flippant structural changes. Why experiment with the structural supports on a building if the building is standing strong? This is a very effective way to estrange current users, causing active contributors to leave the site. It's undermining to the people who have put countless hours into presenting the best information available at the time. When someone posts additions/corrections to one of my pages, I verify the information and then incorporate that into the page. If my submissions all of a sudden include a wiki without my consent, I may choose to no longer submit content.

What is the real issue here? Old pages that are in need of renovation? Perhaps when a page has a low enough score or it's owner has been inactive for a few years, it could be transferred automatically to the adoption folder. Perhaps adoption pages should be entirely wiki until they are adopted by a new owner. What do you think about that?

This post was spurred from one I encountered on a secondary website. Why are we discussing changing SP on a separate website where not as many members are likely to see it?
Last edited by gimpilator on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:19 am, edited 7 times in total.
User Avatar
gimpilator

 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Edmonds, Washington, United States
Thanked: 17 times in 11 posts

The following user would like to thank gimpilator for this post
Dean, Marcsoltan, Silvia Mazzani

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Scott » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:18 pm

..
Last edited by Scott on Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7477
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 601 times in 324 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Sarah Simon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:25 pm

Scott wrote:
I am completely against this wiki idea.


+1.


+1000

A wiki waters down ownership and accountability. What's the point in someone pouring all sorts of creativity and well-researched content into a page if some dufus can come along and replace it with junk at a whim?

Who mediates in a wiki pissing contest, where two contributing authors don't agree?

If we're going to offer a wiki solution on SP, it needs to be completely voluntary. I, for one, do not want my pages edited by a stranger. If another SPer finds something on my page that needs to be updated, I encourage them to notify me via Additions & Corrections.
Go climb a mountain
User Avatar
Sarah Simon

 
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Location: Black Forest, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 238 times in 107 posts

The following user would like to thank Sarah Simon for this post
Brian C, Dean, Kiefer, Marcsoltan, Matt Lemke, norco17, Silvia Mazzani, yatsek

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:30 pm

SummitPost is already a wiki:
A wiki is a website which allows its users to add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser usually using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor.


But SummitPost will not be a completely open wiki where anyone can add, modify or edit someone else's page. Ownership of a page is a key part of the culture of SP. That will not change. What is mostly being discussed is a way for pages that aren't kept up to date, or whose owner is absent from SP, to become more easily transferred to someone willing and able to improve and update the page.

There is also discussion of having a small section at the end of every page that is open to be edited by any user so that current conditions or updates about the mountain can be posted.
gimpilator wrote:When someone posts additions/corrections to one of my pages, I verify the information and then incorporate that into the page.

But not everyone does that. And not all visitors to the site know to look at the additions/corrections section. One of the proposed ideas would essentially be taking the additions/corrections section and incorporating it into main part of the page. That's all.
gimpilator wrote:If my submissions all of a sudden include a wiki without my consent, I may choose to no longer submit content.

Why? I'm not sure understand not being willing to allow one's submitted content to be more complete and improved by allowing a small section of it to incorporate content from other users.
gimpilator wrote:What is the real issue here? Old pages that are in need of renovation?

Yes, that's certainly part of it. And old pages that people are sitting on, but don't update and refuse to give up ownership. Along with the fact that allowing a small section where people can post small additional bits of information will allow pages to be more up to date.
gimpilator wrote:Perhaps when a page has a low enough score or it's owner has been inactive for a few years, it could be transferred automatically to the adoption folder. Perhaps adoption pages should be entirely wiki until they are adopted by a new owner. What do you think about that?

That's certainly been mentioned a few times during the discussion and is likely to be implemented in some way.
gimpilator wrote:Why are we discussing changing SP on a separate website where not as many users are likely to see it?

Discussion can take place anywhere. The UserVoice was set up mostly to allow people to vote on what they'd most like to see implemented on SummitPost. UserVoice provides a service that we could use immediately but would have taken weeks to code into SP. And I don't know if people are less likely to see it there than here on the SP forums. There is a link in the top right corner of every page linking to UserVoice. Seems to me that only a very small portion of the userbase here actually comes into the forums.
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 342 times in 185 posts

The following user would like to thank Montana Matt for this post
Josh Lewis

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:36 pm

Sarah Simon wrote:A wiki waters down ownership and accountability. What's the point in someone pouring all sorts of creativity and well-researched content into a page if some dufus can come along and replace it with junk at a whim?

I don't think completely open editing on all pages is even an idea that has been discussed. If it has been, I've not paid any serious attention to it.
Sarah Simon wrote:Who mediates in a wiki pissing contest, where two contributing authors don't agree?

How does that work now when people collaborate on pages? I don't see this changing the way things work on SP to any large extent. Pages would still be owned by a primary owner. There would just be a small section of the page open for everyone, like the additions/corrections section is currently, but it will be displayed in the main part of the page with some clear indication that it's not part of the author's contribution to the page. These submissions would likely be moderated by the elves. Of course page owners could report anything that they deem inappropriate or inaccurate and it would be reviewed.
Sarah Simon wrote:I, for one, do not want my pages edited by a stranger.

No need to worry about that. It will never happen. Unless, of course, you abandon your pages. Though it seems like nowadays when many people "go home" (leave SP), they take their "ball" (pages) with them...
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 342 times in 185 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:48 pm

I wish folks would stop taking one idea (like having a small section below a page where folks could add new information or current route conditions) and acting like it was another that was never brought up (no one ever has suggesting that page content be open to the masses. EVER).

When someone suggests one proposal you don't like and you try to shoot it down by saying you don't want your entire page taken over, it doesn't really aid the discussion. So... Gimplator had one alternative to the proposal in there... what other ideas do folks have???
Last edited by mrchad9 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Sarah Simon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:51 pm

Matt & Chad,

I see two key takeaways for the site administrators:

1. There is a lot of concern about any open-Wiki efforts. Proceed with caution.
2. Communicate more clearly, your message is not getting through.

Perhaps the "communication breakdown" you perceive could be controlled by better-communicating your wishes regarding "one open-wiki section" of a page. Clearly, based on feedback, this is not the message that is being heard. In marketing, it doesn't matter what your intentions are - if your target audience doesn't get the message, you need to rethink your communication strategy (instead of blaming the target audience).

Hint: Sometimes reframing the discussion in a way that doesn't raise hackles can be effective. Example: Perhaps we talk about a "small but dynamic conditions update" section of a page instead of "Wiki," eh?

Cheers,
Sarah
Go climb a mountain
User Avatar
Sarah Simon

 
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Location: Black Forest, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 238 times in 107 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:19 pm

Here is my idea...

Have a small location at the bottom of route, mountain, and canyon pages where members can add additional content for updated conditions. Maybe it is current snow conditions, updated driving directions, whatever. Anyone can edit this section, including the owner. The owner could delete stuff here (same as everyone else) and they could move stuff into the main page if they wish.

Ideally the system could track who made edits here. This way if spam makes it into here then deleting the user will delete the edit. Also I think the section would be text and links only. No pics would be allowed. And the font could even be a size smaller than the page itself so it doesn't look like it is part of the main work, but rather additional information others have added.

Comments and additions being on a seperate page is a real problem. Especially for new users. That needs to change.

Included in my idea... pages will not be wiki.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:28 pm

Sarah Simon wrote:2. Communicate more clearly, your message is not getting through.

Their really is no message being communicated by us at this point other than there is an idea about some form of open editing/collaboration/easier page adoptions/etc. that is being discussed. The idea is only in the very early phases of discussion. No work has started yet and it is still to be decided what direction this will go. When we have a clearer direction, the message will be stated more clearly.
Sarah Simon wrote:Hint: Sometimes reframing the discussion in a way that doesn't raise hackles can be effective. Example: Perhaps we talk about a "small but dynamic conditions update" section of a page instead of "Wiki," eh?

Point taken Sarah. But the title of the proposed idea is "Allow for pages to more easily come up for adoption" and "wiki" is only mentioned in one of the 3 listed sub-ideas.

The OP of this thread and Scott's and your immediate quote made it sound much more "menacing" and "threatening" than any idea ever proposed by the site administrators.
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 342 times in 185 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Matt Lemke » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:30 pm

Although having an open wiki is something that won't happen on SP, I am against the idea of having anyone edit my pages :D
User Avatar
Matt Lemke

 
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:34 am
Location: Red Lodge, Montana, United States
Thanked: 95 times in 75 posts

The following user would like to thank Matt Lemke for this post
Marcsoltan

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:32 pm

Matt Lemke wrote:Although having an open wiki is something that won't happen on SP, I am against the idea of having anyone edit my pages

That's not being discussed either.

See Chad's post above for a more clear idea of what is being considered/proposed.

Along with a small section on each page open to all users (as Chad describes), pages may have stricter guidelines for ownership. If quality score is low (i.e. too many votes below 6 or 7) or if the page is clearly abandoned, it will appear on some list showing that it is up for adoption.
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 342 times in 185 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby gimpilator » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:39 pm

Montana Matt wrote:If quality score is low (i.e. too many votes below 6 or 7) or if the page is clearly abandoned, it will appear on some list showing that it is up for adoption.


This is a wonderful idea. I would support that completely. To keep high quality standards for information on SP, this should have been implemented long ago. I could name a large number of inactive users with crappy old pages that need updating.
User Avatar
gimpilator

 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Edmonds, Washington, United States
Thanked: 17 times in 11 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:51 pm

Matt has some good ideas with page adoption. I really think it is a separate component than the 'user updates on dynamic conditions' section we are proposing here. It's a separate process and mechanism for sure. I'll start a thread on it.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
gimpilator

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby gimpilator » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:54 pm

Good idea Chad. That is a separate topic.
User Avatar
gimpilator

 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Edmonds, Washington, United States
Thanked: 17 times in 11 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Montana Matt » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:02 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Matt has some good ideas with page adoption. I really think it is a separate component than the 'user updates on dynamic conditions' section we are proposing here.

You're right. It is. I shouldn't have tried to lump them together. In some ways, allowing pages to come up for adoption more easily is, in a sense, a wiki idea (and hence the reason the term is used at all in the post), but it this discussion has evolved into two separate ideas:
1) Allowing pages to become eligible for adoption more easily
2) Allowing for some small section of each page to be added to/edited by all users.

These should be separated...
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 342 times in 185 posts

Next

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.