Fletch,
But apart from how many adults there are on SP, Bruno asked an important question. Before he asked that question, I didn't mind letting the owners decide whether or not to turn their pages "full-wiki" (to make it clear, I don't mind other people editing my pages except for the overview, and selection of pictures). But Bruno's question made me think hard enough to finally be able to formulate my personal answer. And the answer is: I'm afraid that if the owner hits the "public" button for the whole page, the page will no longer be available for someone willing to own it. (You don't need to tell me how the current procedure works - our little, East Central European corner of the SP world has benefited greatly since Bob Sihler introduced it.) What I'm afraid of is that if you ask the Elves to let you own a poor "public" page, instead of getting the page, you'll receive the following message: "This is a public page, which means you can edit it any time you want. We are looking forward to your making the page better."

guhj wrote:

Alpinist wrote:2) If the owner does not update the page for several weeks, notify the Elves, or post a message in the forums so that people can voice their opinions by voting on the page. BE MORE PROACTIVE. If the page score goes down and the owner doesn't respond, odds are good that the Elves will assign the page to you if you want it.

(cut)

I'm not sure they will actually solve the quality problem if people don't care enough to provide the feedback. The tools are already there to do that and they are not being used.

This is a major issue with the current system, in my eyes. If I want to fix some small error, it's a project that will (literally) take weeks, if the page owner doesn't happen to be one who responds quickly. Let's say a new measurement has been made, and the south peak of Kebnekaise has been found to be 2111 m instead of 2104 m. I'd like to fix it, but if I'll have to spend maybe an hour or two of my time spread out over a couple of weeks, that's a pretty severe deterrent. If I could just click edit, fix the numbers, click save and have my edit show up, I'd do it.

The main reason that I don't provide a lot of feedback is that it's not easy. I'd like to fix small, easy mistakes, and bad grammar and other such "2 minute jobs", but it's just not worth the hassle of sending a PM, checking back in week to see if I got a response, talk to the elves, and all that.

I'm quite certain that a lot of things would be fixed if this huge hurdle was removed, which is why I'd like to see page owners allowing wikistyle editing of their pages.

I understand and appreciate your views. However, any page that is opened to full Wiki style editing will undoubtedly be subject to disagreement between members. I foresee battles be waged over both the content and page format; not on every page but certainly on some pages. Do we really want to open that can of worms?

For example, there is some controversy over the exact height of some mountains because different groups have measured thm differently. Using your example, do we want to give members the ability to edit the height? What happens when 2 members disagree? The same disagreements can happen for other details. how long is the approach hike? How many hours does it take to climb the peak. Etc.

Sorry to have such a cynical view but that is the reality of the world. Just look at the SP forums. Rules are needed to keep the peace. If there are no control mechanisms in place, things will get out of control fast. The majority of people are responsible. Sadly, we need control mechanisms to keep the minority of people who don't know how to play nice from doing stupid things. Not everyone is responsible and I sure as hell don't want to have to proof all of my pages every week to see who has changed them.

Opening pages to unfettered editing is a nightmare waiting to happen. That said, if a page owner wants to allow it, and the Elves don't mind policing issues when they arise, then I have no objections to it being an optional feature that can be turned on/off for each page.

yatsek wrote:

Bruno wrote:Several members have mentioned that the proposal to open area/mountain/route pages for editions would only concern page owners who are willing to open their own pages for edition (beside, possibly, abandonned pages). I haven't seen much debate on this thread regarding this idea, so shall we consider that there is a silent consensus in favour?

After all, shouldn't we leave it to each member to decide if he/she wants to open his/her own pages for public edition (provided that the site programmer is willing to spend some extra hours to create this option)?

I'd say NO, we should not. If the owner turns his/her page into a "full wiki-page", as of that day I guess the page will never get transferred to anybody else, will it?

Yatsek,

I appreciate your answer, at least someone who does not agree has taken the time to respond! I would like to split my answer into three different categories:

1) For pages with inactive owners (e.g. more than 1 or 2 years without login): we can imagine that adoption remains possible as it is currently. This is the large majority of cases of adoptions I guess.

2) For pages with active owners who want to give their pages for adoptions: same as above, current system can be continued.

3) For pages with active owners who don't want to give their pages for adoptions, while this would be wishful (the case you described if I understand well). How many such "forced adoptions" happened over the past few years? You can probably count them on your fingers. Now if these owners would turn their pages public, I would say that most of the problem is solved, as improvements will become possible, and will be much easier than the current system of forced adoptions. If the owner systematically revert your edits without good reasons, I think you could still report the case to the Elves. But I don't think such unconstructive behaviour would be so frequent.

yatsek wrote: And we'll get back to pre-Sihler era with some people "booking" mountains they say they'll climb in the future, multiplying sham pages to collect power points and owning tonnes of pages they've never really created.

I think the most important mountains in Europe and (South & North) America are anyway already taken. In these regions, most new mountains are where the creator has a certain knowledge of it. And for new routes, it is even less likely to see such things happen.

I don't think there's such a big risk that a new system would increase the manipulations of the members obsessed with power points. You know, if you open your own pages for public editing, it means that you don't give so much importance to you own "private property" and value more the collaborative nature of the project. I suggested in mvs article to change the name "owner" to something else for all open or partially-opened pages. If what you say becomes true, you can also reduce the power points attributed to the "maintainer" of "public" pages...

All in all, I think the advantages to partially open SP for public editing (within the limits already mentioned, in particular that owners are free to open or not their pages) outweigh the potential negative impact. My concern is about having a more dynamic SP with increased quality and accuracy.

Hi Bruno,
I think it all comes down to the way people behave. The page owner that does not answer pm or emails or comments is the same guy who will not bother making his pages public, in my opinion.
The only solution is to force adoption after a given time.

The problem i see with the wiki, as stated by others, is that once a page goes public, it will not likely be adopted ever again by a maintainer, and it is quite clear i consider the personal side given by owners a positive side of SP pages. In the long run always more pages will inevitably get wikified.

I am actually quite happy this discussion is starting to take into account behaviour and commitment of members, because i think that is the main cause of bad/incomplete/outdated pages.

If there is a controversy over the height of a mountain, or anything else, it makes sense for a maintainer to resolve the controversy by mentioning it. He can still have his opinion on the matter, but as long as the other side's argument is presented in a reasonable way no one can justifiably complain.

I agree that forum threads become out of hand and they need policing. I've helped out on that before and it's exhausting, tiresome work. If I were convinced this would happen to publicly edited pages, I wouldn't advocate them.

But really these forum threads explode over global warming, "hot or not," legalizing drugs, death penalty, religion, terrorism, foreign policy, etc. The only ones haunting your page about an obscure Spanish mountain ridge are going to be the other Spanish weirdos who love (or hate?) that ridge.

All this is on a continuum, and we are a community. If we are rock-solid certain that opening up pages would create "forum hell," then I guess we better not do it. I'm just saying continued quiet obscurity with somewhat improved information exchange is far more likely.

All the best,
--Michael

yatsek wrote:What I'm afraid of is that if you ask the Elves to let you own a poor "public" page, instead of getting the page, you'll receive the following message: "This is a public page, which means you can edit it any time you want. We are looking forward to your making the page better."

But why do you fear that answer? You can still take good care of the page. Yes, you might have to revert a few unwarranted edits every once in a while, but that shouldn't be more hassle than checking the Corrections&Additions-section.

Alpinist wrote:However, any page that is opened to full Wiki style editing will undoubtedly be subject to disagreement between members. I foresee battles be waged over both the content and page format; not on every page but certainly on some pages. Do we really want to open that can of worms?

For example, there is some controversy over the exact height of some mountains because different groups have measured thm differently. Using your example, do we want to give members the ability to edit the height? What happens when 2 members disagree? The same disagreements can happen for other details. how long is the approach hike? How many hours does it take to climb the peak. Etc.

Sorry to have such a cynical view but that is the reality of the world.

Well, most people have better things to do than sitting around reverting edits on Wikipedia. I'm quite sure the same applies to SP. Most people will try to find a compromise, or quite simply give up, if the "other guy" just keeps reverting their edits.

Even so, there are still edit wars on Wikipedia. They are handled by raising the bar for editing permission. So, as a first step, only registered members can edit. Then perhaps only "long time" members. Then "respected members" (power points or some other measure). Then "a handful of page admins". Then the Elves, and only the Elves, if things really do go that far.

The Discussion page that goes along with every page on Wikipedia is an important part of the concept. Allowing a discussion to take place before editing gives us a possibilty to resolve our differences first, and then make changes to the page. (Much like we are doing now, discussing a possible "wikification" first, and later (maybe) implementing something that most of us feel comfortable with.)

I'm not saying there won't be conflicts. I'm not saying there won't be edit wars. But I feel that, with the appropriate measures taken to limit them, it is a small price to pay for the benefits I believe will come from a "more wikified" editing (ie correct, well written, relevant and suitably detailed pages).

[EDIT]
Oh, and of course, there doesn't seem to be any support for "full wiki". So any "compromise wiki" we may end up with is going to have even more checks and bounds.

gabr1 wrote:Hi Bruno,
I think it all comes down to the way people behave. The page owner that does not answer pm or emails or comments is the same guy who will not bother making his pages public, in my opinion.
The only solution is to force adoption after a given time.

That's possible, but the point your advocate (facilitate forced adoption) would need some other kind of changes in SP policy regardless of whether pages can become open for edition or not.

gabr1 wrote:The problem i see with the wiki, as stated by others, is that once a page goes public, it will not likely be adopted ever again by a maintainer, and it is quite clear i consider the personal side given by owners a positive side of SP pages. In the long run always more pages will inevitably get wikified.

I like the personal side of each page too, but I value accuracy of information more, in particular for area/mountain/route pages. I also think that pages with a strong personal character as less likely to become public, as the owner will probably not open it for edition. And if such onwer does it, then that's also his/her personal freedom to do it. I also think that for most mountains, there won't be more than 2-3 editors that will proceed to changes, and certainly most changes will be either to add information or correct wrong information. It's not about turning SP into an aseptic encyclopaedia.

Alpinist wrote:For example, there is some controversy over the exact height of some mountains because different groups have measured thm differently. Using your example, do we want to give members the ability to edit the height? What happens when 2 members disagree? The same disagreements can happen for other details. how long is the approach hike? How many hours does it take to climb the peak. Etc.

Sorry to have such a cynical view but that is the reality of the world. Just look at the SP forums. Rules are needed to keep the peace. If there are no control mechanisms in place, things will get out of control fast. The majority of people are responsible. Sadly, we need control mechanisms to keep the minority of people who don't know how to play nice from doing stupid things. Not everyone is responsible and I sure as hell don't want to have to proof all of my pages every week to see who has changed them.

Opening pages to unfettered editing is a nightmare waiting to happen. That said, if a page owner wants to allow it, and the Elves don't mind policing issues when they arise, then I have no objections to it being an optional feature that can be turned on/off for each page.

These concerns are valid, but there are solutions. It won't be "unfettered wiki." If you opt in for wiki for some sections on your pages, you'll still be notified is someone changes it, so you won't have to proof all your pages weekly. And in some manner you'll be the final arbiter of the resolution.

Please, folks, let's be bold and experiment and see if it works. But in case the feared nightmares turn out to be real, let's just try opt-in wiki in a small corner of the site. I previously suggested doing it with route pages only. If that's too scary, it could be done with only some of the smaller page categories (huts & campgrounds, trailheads, logistical centers).

chugach mtn boy wrote:Please, folks, let's be bold and experiment and see if it works. But in case the feared nightmares turn out to be real, let's just try opt-in wiki in a small corner of the site. I previously suggested doing it with route pages only. If that's too scary, it could be done with only some of the smaller page categories (huts & campgrounds, trailheads, logistical centers).

As most of you probably have noticed, I like the Wiki idea, and despite the headaches that I get trying to restrain myself and be civil in this thread ( ), I am thrilled to see that we are having this discussion. There's only one thing I fear: that the changes that come out of this discussion are too small to be effective. I believe that if we can try a "sufficiently wiki" concept on a few pages, we'll see if it works. Having a "free for all"-editable section at the end of each page is, in my eyes, right at the limit of "good enough". I'd much rather see a few pages having sections opened up for editing (by members of good standing, and with owners' right to revert bad edits).

So, the first step on my agenda right now would be to reach a consensus on a "wiki trial". Could we find a couple of pages whose owners are willing to open up sections for editing? Start small, see how that goes. Of course, I don't want "the community" to "steal" anyone's pages. But if there are a few volunteers out there, could we try "wiki-sections" on their pages?

I realise that this is not a programmer's dream, implementing some pretty big features, perhaps only to have the experiment killed and buried a few weeks later. But if the code monkey's behind this site are ok with it, I'd be super-thrilled to see this experiment take place. If it turns out the SPers are just too different from Wikipedians, we'll have to shut it down, but maybe it works.

Fletch wrote:Vaya con Dios, gents.

I don't understand you, why should we go with Dios? He is a typical example of inactive member.

More seriously, some numbers for thought regarding the current evolution of SummitPost:

SP has 10'577 Routes pages. 65% were created between 2001-2006, 35% between 2007-2011.
SP has 627'335 Picture pages. 33% were created between 2001-2006, 67% between 2007-2011.

It strikes me to see that 67% of all routes in SP were created during the first five years. The statistics for mountain pages show roughly 50% created during 2001-2006 and 50% during 2007-2011.

Out of the 6883 route pages created between 2001 and 2006, only 24% of them have receive some edit between 2007 and 2011. 76% have received no edit at all during the last 5 years.

This shows the lack of dynamism of the current SP structure. Many pages are turning into museum pieces for the archaeological collection, but we might expect a bit more for a "collaborative content community focused on climbing, mountaineering, hiking and other outdoor activities" (see frontpage statement)

guhj wrote:Could we find a couple of pages whose owners are willing to open up sections for editing? Start small, see how that goes. Of course, I don't want "the community" to "steal" anyone's pages. But if there are a few volunteers out there, could we try "wiki-sections" on their pages?

If mountains/rocks were part of the experiment, I'd open my non-Alaska ones (North Carolina, Austria, Dominica, Wyoming) with the idea that locals might want to participate.

But more to the point, if there was a wiki opt-in, I'd START some pages that have been too daunting to tackle solo. These would be
1) Anchorage logistical center (could be a nice resource for the Denali crowd, but logistical pages are a bit boring to create and a collaborative approach would relieve the burden)
2) Chugach State Park (nobody has ever done a decent job on Chugach regional pages because the area is too vast and diverse)
3) Kenai Mountains (of great interest to Alaska visitors but I only have quality material on 10 or 20 percent of the range)
4) Kigluaik Mountains (Nome area--I have starter material and SPers like Iccareau who visit there could chip in)

I'd open up my route/mountain pages of course, not that there is much. More importantly I'd add more stuff. For example, I climbed the beautiful Rosengartenspitze East Wall a month ago, and tragically had no camera. I remember all the details though. It's a classic case for saying I've got the info but need pictures. Some good fellow who wanders the Alto Adige could come by with some route pictures and paste 'em up himself. Truly collaborative!.

Thanks everyone for the good discussion. Not that we've decided anything, but I feel grateful for the space to develop some positive arguments out of what was previously inchoate grumbling (on my part).
--Michael

I don't think anyone has mentioned this idea. If this idea does go through, there should be a "subscribe" feature which allows members to be notified of changes to a page. I've worked with software that has this feature, plus it also had a feature where it showed a list of names who edited what. Now that gave "editors" more credibility.

Fletch,

Cheer up, now look at the bright side: There's been JUST ONE "NO" to Bruno's

Bruno wrote:After all, shouldn't we leave it to each member to decide if he/she wants to open his/her own pages for public edition (…)?

Bruno,

I appreciate not only your answer but also your question.

Yep, I was speaking about category 3. As far as I remember, within my little CE European corner there were seven or eight such "forced adoptions" last year. (Many more pages were reported as junk and deleted.) Probably none this year, so you might be right arguing this is no real problem any more. But I'm afraid that with the option to make your pages "public" now those weird, say over-active, owners will return, and in the hope of collecting even more easy power points than they can get from hundreds of meaningless photos, they'll start producing dozens of embryo pages, some of them surely with a note at the top kindly inviting anybody interested to develop the page.

Bruno wrote:I don't think there's such a big risk that a new system would increase the manipulations of the members obsessed with power points. You know, if you open your own pages for public editing, it means that you don't give so much importance to you own "private property" and value more the collaborative nature of the project. I suggested in mvs article to change the name "owner" to something else for all open or partially-opened pages. If what you say becomes true, you can also reduce the power points attributed to the "maintainer" of "public" pages...

I suggest owners opening the overview section for public editing lose the power points they've got for this page then. Plus that the page becomes anonymous as of that time.

Guhj,

guhj wrote:

yatsek wrote:What I'm afraid of is that if you ask the Elves to let you own a poor "public" page, instead of getting the page, you'll receive the following message: "This is a public page, which means you can edit it any time you want. We are looking forward to your making the page better."

But why do you fear that answer? You can still take good care of the page. …

No, thanks. I've been through this before - creating a page with someone not on the same wavelength. Second, I'd rather create my own page simply because when I'm locked in my city cage I find creating SP pages more relaxing than watching an average football match whereas correcting someone's frequent errors can be a nightmare to me (I guess I was a teacher for too long a while.) Third, I agree with most of what Alpinist put down on the previous page.