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: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Edmonds, Washington, United States
Thanked: 19 times in 12 posts

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

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: 936
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, norco17, Silvia Mazzani, yatsek

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: 4224
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1220 times in 827 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: 936
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: 4224
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1220 times in 827 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: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Edmonds, Washington, United States
Thanked: 19 times in 12 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: 4224
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1220 times in 827 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: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Edmonds, Washington, United States
Thanked: 19 times in 12 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.