Jump to content

CWDF - Wiki - Opinions?


RichM

CWDF - Wiki - Opinions?  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see a CWDF Wiki or similar?

    • Yes, I think this is a good idea
      17
    • Yes, I think this is a good idea and I'd be keen to contribute content
      12
    • No
      22
    • Indifferent
      11
    • Abstain
      6

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 24/02/23 at 22:46

Featured Posts

I’d go for a “yes, but . . .”, the ‘but’ being that it should be restricted to how to diagnose issues. Fr’instance, how to determine whether an alternator is a nine diode or not, how to check the output of an alternator, how to check that a water pump is functioning, how to set the pressures for a water pump. Things that shouldn’t trigger long, unnecessary debates / arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Col_T said:

I’d go for a “yes, but . . .”, the ‘but’ being that it should be restricted to how to diagnose issues. Fr’instance, how to determine whether an alternator is a nine diode or not, how to check the output of an alternator, how to check that a water pump is functioning, how to set the pressures for a water pump. Things that shouldn’t trigger long, unnecessary debates / arguments.

I think you're being very optimistic. Judging by past debates nearly every request for information or help, simple or complicated, opens the floodgates because everyone seems to think that they have to contribute. That leads to repetitions, sometimes unnecessary lengthy copies of articles etc from other web sites and sooner or later to topic drift. I think setting up a Wiki would be opening a can of worms and in my mind it will be to the detriment of this forum.😒

 

Howard

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t disagree with you, Howard, and I may well be being naively optimistic! However, I for one would find a repository for that kind of information very useful, not least because it can be very difficult finding things again, even using the search function!

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for feedback. It would be good to get some more votes in the poll before it closes.

 

If there isn't a great demand or interest, it will unfortunately be hard to justify the time and effort required to bring it to fruition.

On 10/02/2023 at 20:18, system 4-50 said:

The wiki should wait until somebody joins the forum who strongly favours it AND is prepared to do a lot of the work to run it.  Once it achieves critical mass it will be a major asset.

The idea is that it would be maintained as a collective and not by a single individual. I could stand up a platform quite easily but I do not have the knowledge or experience to create enough content for it. That is moot however because we have a community who do have the knowledge. The question here is to ascertain whether or not there is enough interest to make it worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RichM said:

If there isn't a great demand or interest, it will unfortunately be hard to justify the time and effort required to bring it to fruition.

The idea is that it would be maintained as a collective and not by a single individual. I could stand up a platform quite easily but I do not have the knowledge or experience to create enough content for it. That is moot however because we have a community who do have the knowledge. The question here is to ascertain whether or not there is enough interest to make it worthwhile.

A wiki is normally intended to be a community effort, however, in the early days of a new wiki I expect a large quantity of moderating to be necessary until the community learns how to behave with it.  This moderating is best done by a single person. The smaller the group doing it the easier it is to maintain a clear, single policy.  If a person can be found to do this who has the commitment and the respect of this forum then I would vote for it.  Otherwise I would vote to wait.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RichM said:

Thanks for feedback. It would be good to get some more votes in the poll before it closes.

 

If there isn't a great demand or interest, it will unfortunately be hard to justify the time and effort required to bring it to fruition.

The idea is that it would be maintained as a collective and not by a single individual. I could stand up a platform quite easily but I do not have the knowledge or experience to create enough content for it. That is moot however because we have a community who do have the knowledge. The question here is to ascertain whether or not there is enough interest to make it worthwhile.

I think you may be making an assumption that there are "experts" on here who would be able to contribute and there well may be, but how can you be sure that everyone who contributes actually has the knowledge required? That is where the can of worms lies, and that could lead to inevitable longwinded arguments, differences of opinion and fall outs which would make the Wiki of questionable merit.

 

I would suggest that the potential for  aggro would not be worth the effort of setting it up and maintaining/monitoring worthwhile and would be more trouble than it is worth.

 

Howard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle but I'm afraid that the forum format "anyone can say anything" would just not allow it to work.

I posted this in the 'Why have we got silly badges and names' on our avatars.

 

I believe it is relevant to this discussion of how to provide useful and accurate information

 

 

Another forum (VBulletin software) I am a member of does have something similar - there are various grades of members (but not flagged with a huge crown covering their avatar) and one category called 'Advisory Panel Member'

 

These are forum members who because of their job**, having written techinical books on the subject**, or, whom by their postings are generally acknowledged as being an expert** in that field and who agree to be consulted are given that role.

Each Panel member also provides a short explanation of their background, knowledge and experience on the subject.

One could be an panel member based on gas installation knowledge, but not on welding, or on 12v electrics but not on anchoring. etc.

 

** An author, or expert on (say) microwave communication, building houses, or building bridges is not likely to be 'qualified' to be an Advisor on a boating forum.

 

There is a section within the forum called the "Knowledge Library" where members can submit articles and documents for submission into the library. Many of the Advisory Panel members write such articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/02/2023 at 19:04, MtB said:

 

One of the reasons I contribute very little to the gas threads is the reams of half-truths and total tosh posted by so many people with total confidence.

 

There is so much ol' shyte gets posted that countering it takers up more effort than I'm willing to make, so I just back out. 

 

 

I have given up posting advise or information on timber treatments for the same reasons. Despite having been trained by a Master Cabinet Maker, and having worked with wood and restoring old furniture for the last 60 years, I now seem to know less about wood treatments than someone who can read all the claims off the back of a tin that they bought on the internet. There are also several other competent woodworking members who no longer post, presumably for similar reasons.

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

I have given up posting advise or information on timber treatments for the same reasons. Despite having been trained by a Master Cabinet Maker, and having worked with wood and restoring old furniture for the last 60 years, I now seem to know less about wood treatments than someone who can read all the claims off the back of a tin that they bought on the internet. There are also several other competent woodworking members who no longer post, presumably for similar reasons.

 

 

I'm no cabinet maker , but learnt a lot from Dad who was in the same position as you, but won't post advice as it's not my field much to Dad's disgust I was better at metal bashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of bad information can be mitigated in the same way as Wikipedia: cite sources and references for information provided. No doubt, due to the expertise of a lot of forum members, a lot of that could be 'i have worked in field X for Y decades'. The idea that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source is quite frankly a little old-fashioned. Used correctly, it is in my mind one of the greatest achievements of mankind. The sum of (mostly correct) human knowledge at the tip of your fingers.

 

I've worked with smaller wikis both professionally and recreationally and often see the quality of their content as a function of the quality of the userbase. It would require work from community members to ensure accuracy sure, but would that really be *less* work than having users ask the same questions, having to provide (or seek out threads providing) that same information, and taking part in the same 'discussions' over and over again?

 

There's a wealth of information that could be provided in a wiki that is *not* really up for debate, and with a little careful moderation, those topics that *do* turn into debate could be either locked, or clear warning given at the top of the page.

 

If the main argument of a wiki not working is 'our community simply argues too much' then it sounds like there's a community-level issue. If communities spawned from places like 4chan can have accurate wikis regarding fairly technical subjects, it seems wild to me that one serving the canal community could not.

 

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

Edited by sigsegv
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sigsegv said:

The issue of bad information can be mitigated in the same way as Wikipedia: cite sources and references for information provided. No doubt, due to the expertise of a lot of forum members, a lot of that could be 'i have worked in field X for Y decades'.

 

Really that would rule me out providing any contributions because A lot of my knowledge comes from experience and fellow professions I trust. It may be fine for those from higher academia who giving sources and references is a way of life, but if I have to first get access to the text books and search then for the reference I would not bother. Especially as many of the authors were/are just FE lecturers, much like myself.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Really that would rule me out providing any contributions because A lot of my knowledge comes from experience and fellow professions I trust. It may be fine for those from higher academia who giving sources and references is a way of life, but if I have to first get access to the text books and search then for the reference I would not bother. Especially as many of the authors were/are just FE lecturers, much like myself.

I'm not suggesting everything posted to the wiki should have 100% academically sound, rigorous citations (how many of those exist for canal-related matters?). If member Jo Bloggs is an expert on turboencabulators, and everyone knows she is, and her knowledge of things is generally trusted by the community then I think that would be good enough. Wouldn't even need to be verified necessarily, but if someone then comes along and says 'oh actually the flange manifold coefficient is actually 4 not 4.2' and corrects the wiki (ideally proving it) then great, we're tending toward correctness.

 

Of course, we could also go the other direction...

DWRAknGW4AAVjxo.jpg.e2d33b01330beb095bde93d9d65cc715.jpg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/02/2023 at 09:56, Arthur Marshall said:

Half the information supplied on here is expert advice, and half of it is opinion. Even the expert advice by known experts gets argued about and the usual suspects would delight in amending wiki entries to malicious effect.

Anything indicating that the internet is a reliable source of information is dangerous...

 

I think that really sums it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for me.

I don't trust anything that bears the word "Wiki" in it, or follows the premise of any old contributor writing anything they want (it happens enough in the forum, but at least that's hand able).

 

It's not that I disagree with the principle.  It's because "Wiki" has a rubbish reputation.  Why would this forum want to be associated.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea, not because I'm against the concept specifically but more because this place lives or dies on discussion and even though it can be frustrating for the old hands to see the same topics raised time and time again the forum needs new members and that's how new members get involved, by asking questions.

 

And I have a real soft spot for the forum and we need new involved members 

Edited by tree monkey
  • Greenie 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust anything anybody says. Or writes. To be absolute truth.  But the majority of everything has a degree of validity which can be useful if judged correctly.

I am a bit worried about I.  I is 75 years old and should be decrying anything newer that 50 years old, but I'm not.  I've looked in Wiki for an explanation and haven't found one - but I did get distracted by an article on particle physics which we all know is fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

I don't trust anything anybody says. Or writes. To be absolute truth.  But the majority of everything has a degree of validity which can be useful if judged correctly.

I am a bit worried about I.  I is 75 years old and should be decrying anything newer that 50 years old, but I'm not.  I've looked in Wiki for an explanation and haven't found one - but I did get distracted by an article on particle physics which we all know is fantasy.

You think that's fantasy, try quantum physics... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Not for me.

I don't trust anything that bears the word "Wiki" in it, or follows the premise of any old contributor writing anything they want (it happens enough in the forum, but at least that's hand able).

 

It's not that I disagree with the principle.  It's because "Wiki" has a rubbish reputation.  Why would this forum want to be associated.

 

Well this forum (or any public online forum for that matter) isn't too far apart from the very concept of a Wiki, i.e. a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users. The key difference is that as you know, a forum is more focused around the discussion of such content and is not limited to or restricted to supposed factual information, but also opinion. 

 

Not sure I'd agree with your point about Wiki having a rubbish reputation. By whom? Wikipedia for example is constantly maintained and updated. The same cannot be said for the hard-cover encyclopedia my late mother bought me back in 1995.  - Which is now out of date and contains information that has since been disproven by scientists and/or other experts in more recent years.  (e.g. due to recent discoveries about our solar system etc etc)

 

Point is; Much of what we think we know today will likely be disproven in years to come. But if we don't share what we think we know, how will anyone be able to disprove it? That is the beauty of sharing information. We can only build on our knowledge by doing just that. 

 

Ultimately if people take what they read as gospel (irrespective of whether they read it in a scientific textbook or otherwise), then quite frankly they're simply narrowminded. It's always best imo to keep an open mind. 

 

Point in case; Only 15 years ago we were being told by the government (albeit indirectly) to go out and buy diesel cars on the basis that they were more efficient and better for the environment. Now look at what we're being told. - Does that mean we shouldn't share what we think we know today?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RichM said:

Not sure I'd agree with your point about Wiki having a rubbish reputation. By whom?

Bu those who comment thus.  Try supporting Wiki either in conversation or online.  The insults will be many and fast.

And we all know how long it takes to rebuild a reputation, Skoda are still working at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.