SummitPost.org

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?

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.

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???

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Good idea Chad. That is a separate topic.

mrchad9 wrote: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.

I think this is a good idea, and expressed said sentiment the last time this issue came up. I am 100% against open wiki. However, I do not think most people utilize the 'additions and corrections' sections on most pages. It lacks visibility so you never know what you are going to get or if it is relevant. Simply moving the 'additions' part of the 'additions and corrections' to the bottom of the page where it can be visible would be a step up, I think. At the bottom of the page, it will not disrupt the flow or the creative element but it will allow people to post updated beta and even useful pictures to a page.

Montana Matt wrote:

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. It's a separate process and mechanism for sure. I'll start a thread on it.

I will edit the ideas on UserVoice later today to reflect this as well (unless that's what you were talking about doing Chad?).

If you edit it on UserVoice that would be good. What I was talking about, and just did, was start a thread on the topic. Folks should continue to use UserVoice, but sometimes a thread generates more discussion and back and forth than UserVoice does. Plus some folks might notice it on the homepage that miss it in UserVoice.

Montana Matt wrote:

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.

I very much agree. I've put in a good addition to a page in the corrections area... ignored. Lets be honest with our selves, most people if they see a bad page that does not provide the information they want, they close out of it. A few of us die hard fans will look into the additions and corrections. Until I'm proven otherwise, I don't see why a little wiki box near the bottom of a page would be "damaging". As someone who has pumped up my pages with lots of info, I'd be happy if folks could add more little nuggets of wisdom in the page at the bottom section.

I'm against it. I'm not averse to being edited (I'm a professional writer, after all). However, interference of the sort created through wiki is not something with which I'd wish to struggle. I wouldn't have the time to devote to constant outside editing and nit-picking.

BobSmith wrote:I'm against it. I'm not averse to being edited (I'm a professional writer, after all). However, interference of the sort created through wiki is not something with which I'd wish to struggle. I wouldn't have the time to devote to constant outside editing and nit-picking.

No one talking about editing your content.

Ugh. Not sure why folks cannot understand the proposal.

Poor form from you on the thread title gimpilator. It is misleading people.