Change the title of the thread, Mr. Chad, to help clarify your message and reframe your proposal???

People, what is under consideration (and likely to happen) is almost identical to the option most people preferred in a discussion about a year ago.

There would be another section on a page, not removable by the owner, that would be open to anyone to post about conditions, fee changes, road access, etc. It is up to the page owner to include it or not. No one will have access to other parts of the page. I believe the page owner can even delete the additions.

Honestly, I think Chad and Matt have been clear about this in this thread. I think the word "Wiki" makes many of us on this site see red and not look at the details. I've been firmly against true wiki-style myself, and I'm fine with this new feature.

Basically, all it is is putting the Additions and Corrections part as an open section on the main page.

The rest stays the same. We have heard the membership loud and clear that there is no real desire for anything beyond that.

I can't change the thread title Sarah. Only a forum mod or gimilator can. He has picked a devisive (and misleading) title intentionally so that his POV is supported.

Bob Sihler wrote:There would be another section on a page, not removable by the owner, that would be open to anyone to post about conditions, fee changes, road access, etc. It is up to the page owner to include it or not. No one will have access to other parts of the page. I believe the page owner can even delete the additions.

That is not entirely true for my proposal Bob. My suggestion is that it is at the bottom of every mountain, route, canyon, and area page. Not up to the owner. But the owner can delete content there (if it gets out of date if is was conditions updates, or if they decide to include it in the main page, or if they just don't like it). The owner can decide to included the content in the main page or not.

And... no one would have access to the main page but the owner.

What's wrong with the existing section "additions & corrections?" The only problem we have is that when someone adds something to this section the owner of the page is never alerted. If we had a a system in which the owner of the page receives a message, similar to a comment, then he knows someone has added something, or corrected something. Then he/she can act upon it. How many of us have the time or energy to go through all of our pages to see what people are adding? Not too many of us, I certainly don't.

There is, and has been for a long time, a great deal of controversy about ratings of technical climbs, not to mention many other aspects of technical climbing. Every technical climber seems to have a different opinion. Why are we muddying the waters by adding a section on the bottom of the page for every Tom, Dick and Harry to jump in with their own opinions? If they are new to summitpost, they can always comment, like they have always been able to.

I just don't like people to mess with my pages in a Wiki system.

There is already three open wiki sections on a page. One is additions and corrections, the other is comments, and the last is the climbers log. I think these might be made more visible similar to mountian projects comments at the bottom of a page. However, I agree that for the most part this is not needed on summitpost.

Marcsoltan wrote:I just don't like people to mess with my pages in a Wiki system.

No one has suggested that.

No one has suggested that.

I think including the word "wiki" in any proposed change is bound to rile. Maybe just call it "editable updates section". The original title was misleading since this kind of thing has really been proposed.

After reading through it, it seems to have merit. Having the additions and corrections at the bottom of the page would help indicate which pages should be put up for adoption; i.e. many additions and corrections have not been addressed and incorporated into the text.

I know some of us have pointed out gross inaccuracies to a page in the form of additions and corrections. Even after pointing out the inaccuracies, people will still vote 10/10 because they don't bother to read the additions/corrections when voting. Having them at the bottom could be helpful to voters.

mrchad9 wrote:I can't change the thread title Sarah. Only a forum mod or gimilator can. He has picked a devisive (and misleading) title intentionally so that his POV is supported.

Bob Sihler wrote:There would be another section on a page, not removable by the owner, that would be open to anyone to post about conditions, fee changes, road access, etc. It is up to the page owner to include it or not. No one will have access to other parts of the page. I believe the page owner can even delete the additions.

That is not entirely true for my proposal Bob. My suggestion is that it is at the bottom of every mountain, route, canyon, and area page. Not up to the owner. But the owner can delete content there (if it gets out of date if is was conditions updates, or if they decide to include it in the main page, or if they just don't like it). The owner can decide to included the content in the main page or not.

And... no one would have access to the main page but the owner.

My wording wasn't clear, and that led to you misunderstanding my post.

Actually, what I was trying to explain is exactly what you have described, and what Matt described in a recent email. However, my "it" that the owner can include or not seems to refer to the section when I meant it to refer to the changes (the owner having the choice to incorporate the changes or not).

An F for the English teacher today.

I see that possibility now Bob. Rather than an F, I'll give you a 6/10, so you actualy get a 71%.

I think some are still not understanding clearly (or don't want to), so I'll try to be succinct and skip the explanations.

1. Basically, Additions and Corrections becomes an open section at the bottom of the page rather than being a link on the side.

2. No other section of the page is open to anyone an owner doesn't want it to be open to.

3. The page owner is under no obligation to incorporate the information into other sections.

4. Anyone, owner included, can add, edit, and delete in that section.


Why this? There seems to be a general consensus that people are not using and/or checking the Additions/Corrections in the current format. Many guests and new members may not even notice it. We are trying to make this more visible while preserving the integrity of the page creator's work.

I've been firmly against suggestions to wikify this site, but I have no issues with this new idea.

Received the following in a PM. I have put in bold what I think are very good suggestions.

Thanks Bob. It sounds like it might be similar to what was proposed by moving the corrections section to the main page. I think it would be good for the page owner to be notified any time renditions are made. It might be good to make it an optional feature as well, and restrict things like emoticons or all images for that matter.

Gimpilator,

No fear about people going into your page and completely altering your page. If that was ever got brought up I would be against that in a heartbeat.. Basically Bob wants to move the additions/corrections page onto the main page and the owner of the page control of the additions/ corrections section from what I am hearing correctly.

I agree Bob!

mrchad9 wrote: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

Well you have a stylist here who could easily make it look different from the rest of the page. Font size difference could work... but I think we could do something a little nicer looking. Perhaps a very light blue or yellow background around that section. I've got other ideas too. But font size difference not only sound boring, but makes it harder to read for people with bad vision. Trust me, the method I'm suggesting would make it obvious that it's not part of the main text.

Bring back SP v1! Long live SP version 1. I want my 650pixel wide image limit back! And the Power ranking system. I had so much Power back then lightning bolts were practically coming out of my finger tips as I uploaded crappy photo after crappy photo to zero applause.

...

If it is as Bob Sihler says it will be, I am okay with the wiki idea in a limited state. I am not at all for having a whole page a wiki-able.

To bastardize Mr. Kipling:
“Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can;
But wiki not for pleasure of wiki'ing, and seven times never wiki an entire SP page!”