Recently, there has been consideration of ways to change how users can submit and edit content. Many members have expressed a frustration about pages that need updates but don't get them because the owner is inactive or unresponsive. Others have valuable information to share but not enough to make a separate page for. Nearly all who comment seem to think the Additions and Corrections feature doesn't work well because it's not highly visible and/or because people-- page owners and other users alike-- don't bother with it.

We are soliciting member feedback and want to know your opinions and ideas.

Some of the ideas so far:

* True wiki-style where anyone can add or edit (not likely to happen, but an idea some have expressed).

* A wiki-style format that allows page owners more measures of control. This would encourage more participation while still giving page creators control over the sweat they expended in the first place. Sample ideas:

1. Enabling page owners to undo revisions.
2. Enabling page owners to approve revisions.
3. Allowing owners to keep certain parts off-limits (like the Overview into which you poured some of your personality while describing the mountain).
4. Letting owners revert to prior versions.
5. Allowing owners to block problem users.
6. Blocking other users from changing the photo display (translation: avoiding wars between members trying to feature their own pictures in prominent locations).

* Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections. This would allow important updates to be more visible but allow page owners to maintain their vision of the page with minimal effort. This would probably be the easiest change to implement as well.

* Making no changes at all.

A fuller explanation of some ideas is here-- http://www.summitpost.org/collaborative-summitpost/755003.

We want to strike a balance between respecting the legwork page authors have done and encouraging contributions from others who have valuable information but feel shut out because pages are already "taken."

You are, of course, welcome to say that you prefer no changes at all. All viewpoints are welcome, and a Global PM has gone out to encourage feedback.

Members who have contributed more to the site-- and that means beta pages, not popular pictures-- will carry more weight with their remarks. That's only fair considering all they have done, for no recompense other than meaningless votes and power points, to build this site into what it is. However, that does not mean that one or two heavy contributors loudly opposed to any and all changes will necessarily carry the day. We sincerely and strongly encourage all interested members to participate in this discussion and are eager to hear new ideas in addition to those listed above.

As of posting time, there is no expiration date set for this thread; how long it stays open has a lot to do with how robust and constructive the discussion is. But at some point, it will be time to close the comments and decide what, if anything, to do.

A final note: this thread will be heavily moderated (if necessary) in order to keep it on track and not frustrate members interested and contributing to and reading the discussion.

Thank you in advance for your interest and your participation!

I generally support changes that would allow other users to add/change/edit content on other folk's articles/mountain/route pages as long as the owner has a mechanism for reviewing/editing/allowing the changes to appear on the page. Ideally the mechanism would encourage collaboration using PMs for example.

One problem with a wiki arrangement, is that good information could get replaced with bad information by a well-meaning member (or a not-so-well-meaning member).

I do like the idea of owner-approved changes. I've seen errors on pages and called them to the attention of the page owner only to have my comments ignored. I've also seen some pages that could use some help with the English. I think making pages open to suggested changes that only the owner would see and would then have to reject, accept, or modify and accept within a certain time frame would be a good improvement.

I Have not created many pages as it takes a lot of time, but i have seen 1st hand the amount of time one can spend creating a page.... and to have someone change or edit to add there personal input could be, to say the least insulting.
i think if someone wants to claim a route, that has been created by someone who has abandoned s.p then maybe there could be a way after 6 months of no activity to change that persons administration over their pages to inactive, enabling the elves administration rights over that persons pages.
And when i say no activity I would mean that person has not logged onto s.p for a period of 6 months. or maybe even 1 year as i feel s.p is a compilation of time and energy vested by its users and the users should be in turn treated with respect.

Something needs to be done. The problem is that many people have put hard work into pages, and there's no reason for changes to be made to them, and they update them as well. That being said I can think of an entire range that quite frankly sucks on summitpost. The Adirondacks. One guy made all the pages practically for all the high peaks, and they haven't been updated in like ten years. The photos are old, the info is old, and the owner of the pages hasn't updated anything. It's the main reason I stopped contributing to summitpost. Why bother? The photos will be ignored, or not put on the pages. The info will get overlooked, or ignored. I've done 45 of the 46 High Peaks. I have photos and info that is way better than the very old stuff on those pages. I won't contribute them if they're going to be ignored or not featured.

My quick opinion...
NO to full wiki - out of respect to the page creators, and in extreme cases this would mean the effort put in creating pages going down the drain.
YES to something more than the current 'additions and corrections'. I'd make the open section at the bottom of each page as a default option (only for beta pages like areas, mountains and routes but not for TRs, albums etc) - especially that it's the easiest to implement as Bob said. Just that for the time being, not anything more. Let's see how this works before making other sections accessible to other members, even if changes would have to be approved by the page owner.
If that's technically possible, I'd enable page creators to make some or all sections of their pages full wiki, according to their wish, but not as a default.
Last but not least - big thanks to Michael (mvs) for writing the article and bringing the subject to everybody's attention!

As someone who has contributed a lot of pages, I'm very leery of giving just anyone access to anything in the page, especially the Overview and the picture display.

For those reasons, I favor the following idea:

* Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections. This would allow important updates to be more visible but allow page owners to maintain their vision of the page with minimal effort. This would probably be the easiest change to implement as well.

That, as kamil says, would be a good place to start if a change is to be made. It would essentially be moving the Additions and Corrections section to a more prominent location that doesn't have to be clicked on in order to be viewed. If it works well, then we could later try his suggestion of giving page owners the option to open up other sections to editing. For example, I don't think I would mind people coming in and updating the Getting There, Red Tape, Camping, and External Links sections in most cases, as long as they were correcting or adding information, not removing it to make the page less detailed (i.e. locals who don't want "their" secrets revealed coming in and removing access information).

borutbk wrote:The following one of Bob's propositions seems the best for a start, my vote on Bob's propositions, so to say:

Bob Sihler wrote:* Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections. This would allow important updates to be more visible but allow page owners to maintain their vision of the page with minimal effort. This would probably be the easiest change to implement as well.

Actually, most of these suggestions came from other members, including that one. I just compiled them.

Maybe they'll wait to see the responses before claiming credit for them!

What good would having the owner approve changes when the owner hasn't been to the site since February? It's ridiculous one guy owns all the pages to Adirondack High Peaks, and all the pages are outdated and feature old photos. IT'S A DISGRACE. Let him keep the stupid power points, because that is all some people care about, but to not open up those pages to major changes is a discredit to the site. Furthermore it's even doubtful the owner made the summit of all those peaks. It's terrible. I see no reason whatsoever to contribute any new info with those pages being all locked up.

I'm completely opposed to allowing non-page owners the ability to edit any of my pages. I put a lot of time and effort into each of my pages. I don't want to have to manage or undo other people's changes. I review peoples' comments/additions regulary and incorporate them into the main page when they are relavent. On the other hand, it irks me to see outdated or poorly written pages. As a compromise, I suggest the following.

Owners maintain full control of their pages provided that; a) the page has been updated in the past 2 years, AND b) the page has a minimum score of 70.

If either of the above conditions are violated, then the page should be opened up to Wiki-style editing with whatever limits others think are appropriate.

Obviously, none of this should apply to personal objects, such as trip reports, albums, lists, etc.

Edit: changed OR to AND above.

Not sure if this was already mentioned (a similar idea was), but if submitters had some kind of check box on the page to allow editors, this would completely make "wikifying" summitpost more appropriate because it would then be up to the users. Yeah I know you would still have some users who might not activate it, but I think many would.

Not sure how much work Matt wants to put into this, but in a different cms software here is a link to a content revisioner:
http://extensions.joomla.org/extensions ... ssion/6260
Matt is familiar with joomla so it's possible he might know how to convert it? (just throwing out ideas)

Also the question comes to mind, how good is SP's ACL (Access Control Levels) for members? Obviously I know what access rights we have, but in the backend of summitpost I have no idea what it looks like.

I'm all for the option of adding an open section at the bottom of the pages. I think this would be a good starting point at seeing what kind of difference this would make, i.e. would it be utilised or abused. From a personal point of view, I would probably take this new information and incorporate it into the page, but then I would generally do this in anything in the current additions and corrections section. I think I had a comment before about me stating a peak in Scotland was higher than Everest(small typo). You really can't ignore a comment like that, can you?

I've also done a few collaborations with people here on Summitpost and not only has the page benefited, but so have I, as I have learned different/new techniques in laying out my/the pages. An open section might just be the catalyst for more and more of this sort of positive thing.

As far as issues like the Adirondack pages are concerned, where the original author has vanished from SP and doesn't respond to emails etc., one can request to become the author or a co-author and then do what you want. I have done this with several pages I found to have been abandoned and from there done my best to improve them.

Throughout the years I have had a few comments/additions to my pages. I have always incorporated them into the page and given credit to the person who mentioned them. If an owner is not responding, then he/she needs to be reported.

Having said that, I think the idea of "having an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections" is a good one.

Bob Sihler wrote:As someone who has contributed a lot of pages, I'm very leery of giving just anyone access to anything in the page, especially the Overview and the picture display.

For those reasons, I favor the following idea:

* Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections. This would allow important updates to be more visible but allow page owners to maintain their vision of the page with minimal effort. This would probably be the easiest change to implement as well.

That, as kamil says, would be a good place to start if a change is to be made. It would essentially be moving the Additions and Corrections section to a more prominent location that doesn't have to be clicked on in order to be viewed. If it works well, then we could later try his suggestion of giving page owners the option to open up other sections to editing. For example, I don't think I would mind people coming in and updating the Getting There, Red Tape, Camping, and External Links sections in most cases, as long as they were correcting or adding information, not removing it to make the page less detailed (i.e. locals who don't want "their" secrets revealed coming in and removing access information).

I would combine this good idea of "open section" with the also raised idea in connection with the inactivity period of an author. If the page author doesn't clean out the content of the "open section" within 6 months (either inserting the additional text into the main body or deleting the inappropriate additions), then the page becomes editable for all. Because it would mean that the original page owner doesn't care with his page any more