Current Basics:

For the anyone to work with (edit, add to, etc) the Quality Assurance Wiki I have to manually add the person as a user. I have been unable to find a way to require e-mail verification (like in this vBulletin software).

If you are interested in helping out, just PM Marc (http://elsmar.com/Forums/private.php?do=newpm) and I can set up a user account where you can edit and make new pages.

I want to use this thread for any discussion, as well, rather than in the wiki for now because I want the outside opinions and thoughs of any registered forum users on what and how.

In addition, there are some technical aspects which may come up. I would also prefer to discuss them here rather than in the wiki for now. I think the format here lends its self better to discussion.

Note: See Post 22 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=135521#post135521):This thread is to start a dialog for those interested in participating in, or opining on, the Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance BOK (Body of Knowledge) Wiki.

Today I installed version 1.8.2 of MediaWiki (EDIT: 8 December 2006). However, I have severely restricted access. We simply do not have enough people to monitor for vandalism. So - at this point the wiki is Locked Down and is only open to editing by Registered Elsmar Cove Forum visitors who request access.
Early posts split from he 'Quality Assurance BOK Wiki Help Wanted' (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14814) thread.
***********************

Marc,

I like your idea of a quality-focused Wiki.

If you haven't seen these, Wikipedia has a couple pages that can help with the start-up:

a Guide to layout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout) where the look of articles is defined;

and their page for Wiki Markup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_markup).

I don't have the time to dedicate to the job as described, but I've been noodling with Wikipedia lately (see my user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui)) and can do most basic functions - starting pages, adding links, adding pictures - and would be willing to help as things move along.

I appreciate your response. My plan is underway. There was a database issue that I resolved yesterday evening and Sathis appears to be starting to play around with it.

It's really not that difficult for most people wanting to edit a page and do simple stuff. But, it does become a bit challanging for some people.

At this point it looks like I'll be paying Sathis to help me out with this which is OK. I may try to get a couple of others involved for $ if they know/learn the markup language.

But I hope others will jump in a la Wikipedia style and help out without sending me a bill. I personally think it is a good idea.

But I hope others will jump in a la Wikipedia style and help out without sending me a bill.

This is my intention. I worked on Abiline Paradox (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Abilene_paradox) yesterday and will do more as I have time.

WoW! I'm impressed! Thank you Scott! I sincerely THANK you!

There were a lot of people bugging me for a while for a 'wiki' type of BOK resource here. But when push came to shove (so to speak) it was a markup language interface which is very different than in the forums. As the extreme, people can set their options for a WYSIWYG interface where 'formating' isn't visible at the code/html level in the forums. Wiki markup requires a bit more 'understanding'.

Originally my 'solution' was a dedicated forum, but I really think that is great for general discussion(s) --> The Wiki format is great for collaborative definition. At the same time I would also like to get as many links to forum discussion threads (as well as back to Wiki definition pages) as possible.

This is my intention. I worked on Abiline Paradox (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Abilene_paradox) yesterday and will do more as I have time.

That's a nicely-done piece. Did you write it?

:topic: That's a nicely-done piece. Did you write it?Here's where I prod JSW05 into helping out in the Elsmar Cove Wiki...

I do appreciate folks keeping most links to definitions 'on site' (Elsmar.com links rather that rotely linking to Wikipedia or elsewhere) because it helps keep the site ranking up.

:topic: Here's where I prod JSW05 into helping out in the Elsmar Cove Wiki...

I do appreciate folks keeping most links to definitions 'on site' (Elsmar.com links rather that rotely linking to Wikipedia or elsewhere) because it helps keep the site ranking up.

I am interested in helping out, and I'm in the process of sort of examining the whole thing to get an idea of how I can do it. One thing I'm a stickler for is good references, and sometimes it might be necessary to link to something externally, but only in cases where the "something" is some sort of credible scholarly resource. I agree about linking definitions (for example) back to the Cove, as well as other references when it seems appropriate.

That's a nicely-done piece. Did you write it?

It's cobbled from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_Paradox), the definition on the Quality wiki (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary) (which is truncated for some reason - will have to fix that) and the forum thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12818) (which I still need to add to the article).

Also, in case anyone in wondering, it's ok with Wikipedia to use their content for other projects, see their page about copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Definitions_and_trademarks).

It reads, in part:

"The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."

It's cobbled from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_Paradox), the definition on the Quality wiki (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary) (which is truncated for some reason - will have to fix that) and the forum thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12818) (which I still need to add to the article).

Also, in case anyone in wondering, it's ok with Wikipedia to use their content for other projects, see their page about copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Definitions_and_trademarks).

It reads, in part:

"The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."

I think that if we're going to directly quote sources, the sources should be referenced, and the referenced sources should be verified somehow.

One thing I'm a stickler for is good references, and sometimes it might be necessary to link to something externally, but only in cases where the "something" is some sort of credible scholarly resource.. I don't mind external references at all. I just want to 'steer away' from all definitions and references being to other sites. I'm trying to keep this site high in the search engines and high in valid definitions.

I have read quite a lot recently about Wikipedia. There are (were?) several links there to here (**which they have complained to me about saying isixsigma is a better resource and that people here are 'link spamming' and that they are removing the links).

My experiences have been good, but mostly I've done things like look up the Three Stooges and when each died and such. As those of you know who have visited Wikipedia know, it is a good resource. Now - Can we reproduce something as good here (focused upon our knowledgebase as opposed to an encyclopedia covering 'everything'...)?

I've gotten several messges from the Wikipedia folks that links to the Elsmar Cove forums were removed because isixsigma is the 'authorative' site. So - I have no love for Wikipedia.

"The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom." That is the situation here. Call it what you want, but if someone posts here it's Public Domain.

I think that if we're going to directly quote sources, the sources should be referenced, and the referenced sources should be verified somehow. I agree 100%.

I've gotten several messges from the Wikipedia folks that links to the Elsmar Cove forums were removed because isixsigma is the 'authorative' site. So - I have no love for Wikipedia.
I've only used Wikipedia 2 or 3 times. I cannot recall using isixsigma for an 'authorative' answer to any of my questions. I see your point Marc.

Jaime

I've gotten several messges from the Wikipedia folks that links to the Elsmar Cove forums were removed because isixsigma is the 'authorative' site.

I've added Cove links to two articles (ISO9000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000) & QMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Management_System)) and they're still there.

Good to hear! Thanks, Scott!

I'm still struggling a bit with how everything works in wiki's. I'm 'registered' there as Marc T Smith but didn't know we could put up 'user pages'.

I'm still struggling a bit with how everything works in wiki's. I'm 'registered' there as Marc T Smith but didn't know we could put up 'user pages'.

In addition to the User Page, you can also have any number of sub-pages.

Here's what I have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/Gallery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/draft1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/draft2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/draft3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/draft4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/dyk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaui/sandbox

To make a sub-page, just enter the URL of the page you want to make (User:JohnDoe/subpage for example), hit enter, and it should send you to a new edit box. They're good for working on articles (drafts), trying out stuff (sandbox), keeping track of photos (gallery) or just for fun (dyk).

As luck would have it.... The wiki was vandalized. So I've briefly taken it down and am looking at the most recent version which allows editing (including adding new pages) to only be done by logged in people. I'm still checking but I *think* this version can also require an e-mail verification to register.

I thank Scott for seeing the vandalism right away and letting me know. It was also pointed out that the initial setup (all letters on one page) might not be a good idea.

The wiki idea didn't interest me much until recently, and I'm still not terribly sure about it, but so far it is closest to what I think I want.

I'll keep everyone informed of what the latest scoop is. This is just a quick update.

As luck would have it.... The wiki was vandalized. So I've briefly taken it down and am looking at the most recent version which allows editing (including adding new pages) to only be done by logged in people. I'm still checking but I *think* this version can also require an e-mail verification to register.

I thank Scott for seeing the vandalism right away and letting me know. It was also pointed out that the initial setup (all letters on one page) might not be a good idea.

The wiki idea didn't interest me much until recently, and I'm still not terribly sure about it, but so far it is closest to what I think I want.

I'll keep everyone informed of what the latest scoop is. This is just a quick update.Thanks for the update. I, too, have mixed feelings about a Wiki. I really would like to see it work.

One thing that surprised me is some people are making entire web sites with mediawiki, such as their personal sites. They apparently keep them secure as I noted above by restricting 'edits' (which includes starting new pages) to 'registered' people and then they also restrict who can register.

I'm still sifting through some of the features. I had 1.3 online. I downloaded, and am looking at, version 1.5.5.

Wikipedia has been going through the same conundrum ever since the Seigenthaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-05/Seigenthaler) problem occurred. I think they moved to not allowing unregistered users to create new pages - which wouldn't have prevented the problem, btw, but, baby steps, I guess.

The key to is to require registration and a valid e-mail address, I believe. It's just like the forums here. Some people do register here and spam the forums but requiring registration and e-mail verification keeps that to a minimum.

The key to is to require registration and a valid e-mail address, I believe. It's just like the forums here. Some people do register here and spam the forums but requiring registration and e-mail verification keeps that to a minimum.

I agree.

This thread is to start a dialog for those interested in participating in, or opining on, the Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance BOK (Body of Knowledge) Wiki.

I have set up version 1.5.x today. However, I have severely restricted access. We simply do not have enough people to monitor for vandalism. So - at this point the wiki is Locked Down.

I have linked here to the 'Quality Assurance BOK Wiki Help Wanted' (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14814) thread. More to come shortly.

If you are intrested in following this thread by e-mail, use the Thread Tools dropdown menu in the Navigation Bar at the top of the thread and Subscribe to the thread. Or, Post in this thread and ensure Notification of New Replies is checked.

Current Basics:

For the anyone to work with (edit, add to, etc) the Quality Assurance Wiki I have to manually add the person as a user. I have been unable to find a way to require e-mail verification (like in this vBulletin software).

If you are interested in helping out, just PM Marc (http://elsmar.com/Forums/private.php?do=newpm) and I can set up a user account where you can edit and make new pages.

I want to use this thread for any discussion, as well, rather than in the wiki for now because I want the outside opinions and thoughs of any registered forum users on what and how.

In addition, there are some technical aspects which may come up. I would also prefer to discuss them here rather than in the wiki for now. I think the format here lends its self better to discussion.

One thing I'm a stickler for is good references, and sometimes it might be necessary to link to something externally....I don't see external links as a problem. I would like internal links as well, though, for obvious reasons. Also see Post 10 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=134077#post134077) in this thread.

Reminder:

This is the same wiki software used by wikipedia. It is called WikiMedia.

See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_does_MediaWiki_work%3F and http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Image:Wikitext-wiki_markup-wikipedia.png for some basics.

If you are interested in helping out, just let me know in this thread and I can set up a user account where you can edit and make new pages.

I'd like to help.

I'd like to help.

Me too.:agree1:

I'd like to help.
Me too.:agree1:

OK - Here's the scoop. I'll set you both up as 'sysops'.

The current permissions are set to:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createaccount'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['read'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['edit'] = false;

$wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['move'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['read'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['edit'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['upload'] = false;

$wgGroupPermissions['bot' ]['bot'] = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['read'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['edit'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['block'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['createaccount'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['delete'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['editinterface'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['import'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['importupload'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['move'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['patrol'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['protect'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['rollback'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['upload'] = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['userrights'] = true;
// Used by the Special:Renameuser extension
$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['renameuser'] = true;

This locks everything down except for 'sysops'. For now, that's the only way I can see to keep 'spam' and other problems such as vandalism out.

I would *really* like to see this develop into a serious BOK. But until there is some type of e-mail address verification system, or other way to control vandalism and 'spam', I see this as a very restricted Wiki. We simply do not have the number of people to 'patrol' and keep vandalism and spam out.

Scott, you were talking about the setup - Something about individual pages for each alphabet letter and Wiki database limitations. I'd like to discuss those issues here so that others here can comment on how we are thinking of setting this up.

Your comments?

Scott and Jim --> Please let me know that you got your e-mails with your Wiki user name and password.. Thanks!

Scott and Jim --> Please let me know that you got your e-mails with your Wiki user name and password.. Thanks!

I won't be able to confirm receipt until later today because I can't access my gmail account from work. I intend to spend some time with this over the weekend and try to get a feel for how I can contribute--stay tuned.

One of the important parts will be the structure - How we lay it out. I'll visit Wikipedia and a few Wiki sites today and try to get some ideas.

And I think Scott made some comments in the 'old' wiki about page size limitations and such.

Scott, you were talking about the setup - Something about individual pages for each alphabet letter and Wiki database limitations. I'd like to discuss those issues here so that others here can comment on how we are thinking of setting this up.

When I went to edit the glossary, it gave me a warning that the page was too big - 147k or something like that. I think the issue is that some users could have a problem loading a page that large.

The way to fix that would be to break it up into individual pages for each beginning letter - in other words, instead of A-Z on one page, A would have it's own page, B would have it's own page, and so on to Z. I was working on a draft of that when the spam occurred.


Scott and Jim --> Please let me know that you got your e-mails with your Wiki user name and password.

I got it and I'm signed up.

Now, can the pages from the 'old' wiki be transferred over? All we need is the wiki mark-up part of each page - it's just a copy and paste operation. If I can have access to the old wiki I can do it that way or if text files can be made of the old wiki and emailed, I could use those. I'm willing to help.

As for security from spam, I believe you can force editors to sign up with an account to edit - no anonymous editors. If someone becomes a problem, you just block their account and/or IP address.

As for security from spam, I believe you can force editors to sign up with an account to edit - no anonymous editors. If someone becomes a problem, you just block their account and/or IP address.Right now I have it set so that editors have to be set up by myself or a sysop. Banning IPs can be a problem, according to what I've been reading at different wikis. One key is e-mail verification prior to allowing someone to 'register' and edit. Unfortunately that is not a part of mediawiki's feature set.

If we can get this laid out and everything goes well we can look at opening it up to more editors. As I said above, we don't have the resources to control spam and vandalism right now so the easiest way is to keep things locked down until we find an alturnative. Of coourse, anyone here that wants to help out can let me know and I can give them access.

OK, here's the message I get when editing the 'original' glossary:

"WARNING: This page is 147 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections."

So, I propose to break it down in to individual pages for each letter. There will be a navigation bar at the top of each letter page for simple navigation to other letter pages. I'll post a draft on the wiki for review.

Just remembered I was working on a proposed main page also. I'll post that on the wiki for review.

Marc, can anyone view the wiki now? Folks may be interested to see what's going on even if they don't want to edit.

Can anyone view the wiki now? Yes - The new Wiki is online at the same old Wiki address: http://Elsmar.com/wiki/ Anyone can rad what is there, but no one except us can edit or set up an account to edit, etc. See the permissions setup in Post 27 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=136317&postcount=27) - You, Jim and I are 'sysop' accounts.

I PMed you the location of the 'old' wiki, and the main glossary page text, in case you want to salvage some of it. Some of the old wiki seems to be there and some is gone. I had to change the directory name and such for the old wiki, and the old database is still there, but for some reason some of the pages that were started aren't there.

So, I propose to break it down in to individual pages for each letter. There will be a navigation bar at the top of each letter page for simple navigation to other letter pages. I'll post a draft on the wiki for review.
OK - Let's make sure we define the structure we're going to use.

I'm guessing an 'index' page with letters only. Then a sub page for each letter which sounds like what you're saying/thinking.

Jim, what are your idea(s)?

Jim, what are your idea(s)?

Makes sense to me, but I'm going to spend some time with it tomorrow and post back with more, I'm sure.

Let's make sure we define the structure we're going to use.

I'm guessing an 'index' page with letters only. Then a sub page for each letter which sounds like what you're saying/thinking.


That's right.

The index will be part of the main page - see my draft (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/User:Scott_Catron/mainpage) - I've set it up as one of my user sub-pages while we discuss it.

I've set up pages for 'A' (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/A) and 'B' (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/B) so far. I'll do the rest if the consensus is to split them up.

I've also saved the original glossary (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/User:Scott_Catron/gloss).

That's right.

The index will be part of the main page - see my draft (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/User:Scott_Catron/mainpage) - I've set it up as one of my user sub-pages while we discuss it.

I've set up pages for 'A' (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/A) and 'B' (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/B) so far. I'll do the rest if the consensus is to split them up.

I've also saved the original glossary (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/User:Scott_Catron/gloss).

Refresh my memory--where did the glossary come from?

isoreader did the original glossary.

Yeah - I like what you're doing. I did a spelling edit.

I did some formatting work on the prospective main page (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/User:Scott_Catron/mainpage).

Comments are welcome.

When we get enough content, we could mimic Wikipedia's main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) with a featured article and lots of "Did you know..." entries.


Yeah - I like what you're doing.

Thanks. I'll let it sit over the weekend and see if anyone else has an opinion before doing any more glossary page creation.

Sorry about the spelling goof, BTW.

Sorry about the spelling goof, BTW.Nothing to be sorry about. I'm sure there will be a lot of spelling errors here and there. I said that not thinking of the history, so you know what I changed - My telling you was unnecessary.

Yeah - So far so good!

Scott and Jim --> Please let me know that you got your e-mails with your Wiki user name and password.. Thanks!

OK- I got the e-mail and was able to log in. More on this tomorrow.

Sott, I see you're using headers like: {| class="toccolours" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"
|-
|'''Index:'''  [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/A|A]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/B|B]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/C|C]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/D|D]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/E|E]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/F|F]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/G|G]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/H|H]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/I|I]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/J|J]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/K|K]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/L|L]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/M|M]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/N|N]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/O|O]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/P|P]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/Q|Q]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/R|R]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/S|S]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/T|T]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/U|U]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/V|V]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/W|W]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/X|X]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/Y|Y]] [[Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/Z|Z]]
|}__NOTOC__

==B==
<strong>[[Balanced scorecard ]]</strong> - a suggested tool to describe the relevant measures of a business, usually in the following categories: financial, or return on investment and economic value-added; customer, or satisfaction, retention, market and account share; internal, or response time, cost, and new product introductions; and learning and growth, or employee satisfaction and information system availability.

Etc.

Etc. in the individual header pages.

I'm sorta looking at the formatting, and at some from some other wikis. A real mix of html and wiki markup (what ever it is called).

I'm slowly starting to figure out what the scoop is, but still don't fully understand all the linking and how its done.

I will say I'm also getting some php lessons trying to figure out how to manipulate the MonoBook.php file. I just started trying to 'map' the tables in it and such yesterday.

Again, I really like what you've done so far.

BTW - I'll be looking at the install again. I did a basic install. Now I have to look at the 'settings' to enable graphic uploads and a few things. I'll be looking at that today but probably not actually doing anything until tomorrow. I do know I have to reset the PHP Memory Limit from its current 16 to 20 minimum and then reset the server. I think I also have to up the PHP Maximum Upload Size from 2 meg to 3.

I'll keep you informed on what's happening on that end.

BTW - I filled in headers for letters C through Z. I *hope* I did it right.

I *think* I have eveything transferred. Scott (and others), how about a critique?

I just spent an hour or so getting a feel for the thing, and in so doing I edited a couple of the definitions--see " Aesthetics," "Pareto Analysis" and "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" for examples. I see a lot of little things that can be improved, such as spelling and punctuation errors that can be attended to on an ongoing basis. I also see more opportunities for improving many of the existing definition and adding others as time goes by.
I think this has the potential to be an extremely valuable resource, and I think we need to make the effort to make it better than anything else that's available. We certainly have the experience and intellectual capital in the Cove to make that happen.

Yes - There are a lot of small errors including punctuation and spelling, not to mention definitions, etc. Right now I'm just looking at it as a start. How far we can take it depends, in part, on how many people will help out. I, too, think it has a lot of potential, especially with the additional aspect of linking to discussion threads, such as in the definition of 'Quality', where there are multiple definitions.

Thanks for the input Jim!

Marc, looks like you did great with finishing the glossary off.


I think we need to define the structure of the wiki a bit. Following what Wikipedia does, and also, what's easier for users, we should make pages as small as is practical. That's why I split up the glossary. So instead of expanding on definitions at the alphabtized page level, we should be making new pages for each term and expanding there.

I took what Jim did with Pareto Analysis and pasted it into it's own page (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/P).

I also took what Wikipedia has about Vilfredo Pareto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto) and made a page for him.

AND SO ON, Ad infinitum. Just like the Energizer Bunny. Next, I'll start a page for Juran and folks who know more then me can fill it up. Then I'll make a page for the 80-20 rule that will redirect to Pareto Analysis. Then I'll look at the glossary for a definition that's kind of big and make a page for it. Repeat.

When we get done, we'll have neat, trim pages of terms with a line or two about each. Clicking on the term takes users to a page with an expaned definition and also any relevent Elsmar Cove Forum links.

The goal is to have no red links. Red links are blank pages. So Jim (or anyone else - once Marc signs you up), if you see something you want to expand on, click on the red words - it should take you to an edit box that you can fill in to make the page.

Anyway, Marc, shoot me down if I've gone a bit too far here, but the potential is there to make the Elsmar Wiki something easy to use with a wealth of information.

(but we need more help)

Scott

I think we need to define the structure of the wiki a bit. Following what Wikipedia does, and also, what's easier for users, we should make pages as small as is practical. That's why I split up the glossary. So instead of expanding on definitions at the alphabtized page level, we should be making new pages for each term and expanding there.

I took what Jim did with Pareto Analysis and pasted it into it's own page (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary/P).

I also took what Wikipedia has about Vilfredo Pareto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto) and made a page for him.

Gotcha. I think we need to be careful when importing stuff from Wikipedia, because a lot of what's there isn't accurate (the Pareto article is good).

The goal is to have no red links. Red links are blank pages.

The goal should be to create new pages where new pages will help, but to remove the linking when the glossary definition is enough, as in the case of most acronyms and abbreviations.
[/quote]

Next, I'll start a page for Juran

So I go to the Wikipedia page for Juran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_M._Juran) and someone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RustySpear) has included a link to a thread from 2003 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/archive/index.php/t-6219.html) in the reference section of the article.

Gotcha. I think we need to be careful when importing stuff from Wikipedia, because a lot of what's there isn't accurate (the Pareto article is good).

I don't know about 'a lot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Nature_study) but in essence I agree we shouldn't just copy from them, but I see Wikipedia as a good place to start for some articles. If someone else has already done the leg work on Vilfredo Pareto, why re-invent the wheel?


The goal should be to create new pages where new pages will help, but to remove the linking when the glossary definition is enough, as in the case of most acronyms and abbreviations.


Agreed.

Essentially I agree with what you are both saying.

Remember, the initial list was from a thread here that isoreader made a list from and set up in the first wiki. He essentially did a markup on a text file.

Scott did the initial split on this wiki into letter groups, but many terms have (for lack of a better term) 'mini-definitions' from that first file. I haven't removed any, but when I add a term to a page I have not been addiing a 'mini-definition' as most of the terms have.

Something to remember as well is that the original list did not contain a lot of terms, there are mis-spellings, there are terms out of order, I have found the same term twice in different locations. So, while I thank isoreader for that first file, he basically just did a markup so content of even the lists is suspect.

The bottom line is we've started from practically nothing. That is why I made the offer of 10 bucks an hour for someone with a quality background that knows wiki markup to help out. I haven't heard from either of you of whether you're donating time or want a check (let me know, please). I would like to get some content and wikipedia is one place, but there is a big web world out there to find different 'foundations' for entries here. I've also been looking in forum threads for back and forth links where appropriate, such as in the definition of 'Quality'.

Right now we're looking at basics, but I did enable file uploads and in the future we may be able to get more detailed. I'm sure it will be an evolution like the forums. Right now it's kinda bland and simplistic, but in a year or two - Who knows?

I'm kinda enjoying it so far. A you can see, I jumped into the php files and the main css file over the weekend and made some changes to add Google's AdSense (gotta have the advertising, unfortunately).

Anyway, so far so good.

And for anyone reading this thread, if you want to help out let me know and I'll set you up with a user account.

So I go to the Wikipedia page for Juran and someone has included a link to a thread from 2003 in the reference section of the article.The more links there to here the better for us. It will eventually help raise the search engine ranking (it's an 'authoritative' site) for this site. Links there to here = Good.

I did some redundant pages without knowing it at first. For example, there is a nice page for Joseph_Juran while I put in a basic page for Juran.

Oh, my. This could get weird.

I also just noticed the importance of the case sensitive nature of the wiki software...

I did some redundant pages without knowing it at first. For example, there is a nice page for Joseph_Juran while I put in a basic page for Juran.

Heh. Well, we'll have to merge the information and get rid of one of them. I can try to fix it up.

I also just noticed the importance of the case sensitive nature of the wiki software...

We have to watch our clean-ups too - the link from Glossary/P to Pareto analysis was broken when I looked at it this morning - changing the format of a link can break a chain. If you want a link to point to an article but appear as something else, the mark-up looks like this:

This is [[articlename|how it appears]] to people.

In the wiki, 'how it appears' will be clickable and take you to the wiki page 'articlename'. So we're not restricted to what the actual article name is for making wiki-links.

Hope that made sense.

Also, I just plan on doing this as a volunteer. I can't guarantee how much time I can spend on the project so I don't want to disappoint anyone by committing and then not being able to stick to it.

Give me until next monday to clean up the 'main' alphabet pages a bit. I've done several, but it's a bit time consuming.

However, I think the foundation is beginning to form pretty well. One of the 'problem' aspects I am seeing is the case sensitive nature of the wiki software. E.g.: sox does not = SOX or Sox

Just to let you guys know someone cares -

I have been poking my nose in although I know nothing about what you are doing. The site is looking great and I can see where it will eventually be a fantastic reference. Keep up the great work.

I doubt that I would be much help to you with the programing but I can provide proof reading, navigation tests and help with research in verification of articles/information. I could report issues to you via email. Let me know when you get to the point where I might be useful.

Dave

Marc,

Great start on the Wiki. I have some experience in Wiki programming and updates. Count me in if you need some assistance!

Al...

We have to watch our clean-ups too - the link from Glossary/P to Pareto analysis was broken when I looked at it this morning - changing the format of a link can break a chain. If you want a link to point to an article but appear as something else, the mark-up looks like this:

This is [[articlename|how it appears]] to people.

In the wiki, 'how it appears' will be clickable and take you to the wiki page 'articlename'. So we're not restricted to what the actual article name is for making wiki-links.

Hope that made sense.OK - I see how that works now.

...the link from Glossary/P to Pareto analysis was broken when I looked at it this morning - changing the format of a link can break a chain.
I've changed most of the definitions to Capitals (e.g.: Pareto analysis ---> Pareto Analysis) to try to establish a 'standard'. I spent several hours on sunday going through the index making changes and cleaning things up a bit. But - I'm sure there are still errors. You know the 'Visual Inspection' rule...

Anyway, we should be ready to start the 'serious' editing.

BTW - I did my first picture (!!!!) - See Vilfredo Pareto (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Vilfredo_Pareto)

I just got my first look at the Cove Wiki. I'm very impressed--nice job guys!

I think it will be a very good addition to the forum. :applause: :applause:

Very nice!!!
Great initiative by the way, this looks like a very prommissing knowledge base.

I can only hope I have something to add to this Wiki in the future.

My Compliments :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

One of the 'problem' aspects I am seeing is the case sensitive nature of the wiki software. E.g.: sox does not = SOX or Sox

hmmm... will this case sensitive issue affect the search function? it might make searching tricky if it does... i am not familiar with wiki but maybe you can consider adding something like a alphabetical index, which is a good reference and not case sensitive (just like those at the back of books) :rolleyes:

anyway, it looks good... keep it up :)

I have yet to explore this Wiki thing and would like to learn more about it. So if you would like me to help out with anything at all, let me know. As I say I have not worked on this kind of thing before, so I will have a read through this thread and have a look at the Wiki site.

I have yet to explore this Wiki thing and would like to learn more about it. So if you would like me to help out with anything at all, let me know. As I say I have not worked on this kind of thing before, so I will have a read through this thread and have a look at the Wiki site.


This goes for me too. Please let me know how I can help.

Marc
I would be willing to help from this side of the Atlantic. I have a bit of coding experience, but willing to learn new skills.
Paul

I'm cleaning the user records with invalid e-mail addresses today - A slow process that has to be done one user at a time.

For those of you who want to help out I'll be getting together names, etc. tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks!

Marc

Hi Marc,

I do not know anything about wiki, but that should not be a constraint. please just let me know if I could be of any help to you in any manner whatsoever. I will be too happy to be of help to the forum.

Surendro Sahoo

I have yet to explore this Wiki thing and would like to learn more about it. So if you would like me to help out with anything at all, let me know. As I say I have not worked on this kind of thing before, so I will have a read through this thread and have a look at the Wiki site.

It goes for me as well.

Kaliko

Friends,

Some of you may know that I started an effort to define the quality body of knowledge (Q-BoK) back in June of 2003. (Was it THAT long ago?) Try as I would, I could not get senior ASQ staffers or volunteer leaders to understand and support my vision of defining and sharing the 50-year heritage of quality with the rest of the world.

Here is a copy of the 26 October 2005 message I posted on the Q-BoK Mailman list (which I subsequently shut down):
--------------

Friends,

In the front of the October issue of Quality Progress magazine, Debbie Phillips-Donaldson wrote about the Body of Knowledge. She discussed the many activities, both started and planned, to capture and share our amazing heritage.

One of the strong themes of the recent Leadership Summit in Milwaukee was the desire to develop and disseminate the collective Body of Knowledge.

Pablo Baez worked with IT staff to add a "Submit an Article" tool to the Division web sites. This makes it easier to share knowledge with Milwaukee staff and others.

While the Headquarters staff continues to make much of this information more accessible, members are not very involved.

The Q-BoK continues to be a cloud of foggy mist. It lacks shape and substance.

I tried (and failed) to use this Mailman list to build a sense of community. This will probably be my last message to you.

With staff support, we set up a test Wiki platform. There are many paradigms to overcome. It requires people to express an opinion, take a step forward, or otherwise get involved in a new and fluid experience. This is difficult when schooled in the command and control model.

I hope that you had a chance to read about the Wikipedia. I wrote a brief article about this wonderful tool on page 22 of the September issue of Quality Progress magazine. If you missed it, I have a copy of the article posted on my web log (blog):
http://auditguy.blogspot.com/2005/10/use-wikipedia-to-get-smart.html

My original vision was to see the ASQ and its members harness their collective passion to define all of the many facets of this thing called quality. It is not yet happening.

Yet, the need remains. Surrounded by change, we in the quality profession should know more than most how important it is to embrace new tools. Especially those that improve knowledge management. A Wiki is just another tool, to be used for benefit. It is now possible to define our profession in the 21st century -- using perhaps the most democratic, practical, and open forum presently available to all.

By defining our Quality Body of Knowledge, our profession will be better prepared to teach and contribute. We can develop new global initiatives. We can begin to integrate our profession with related disciplines by virtue of defined standards and common practice.

As individuals, we can all contribute through the Wikipedia. I encourage you to read once again the article mentioned above. Most of the knowledge of our profession is poorly described in Wikipedia. You can change that by taking one small step forward. Adding perhaps just a few lines of type. The power of the tool takes over now, as others see what you have done and want to improve on it. Massive peer review.

The process is amazing, much like fire. A few sparks (you) can ignite a forest of ideas. Yours and mine, well known and unknown, experienced and novice. Each using this Wiki tool to become simply the best of ourselves for the common good.

marc,

Responding to your email, just email me or let me know what you need for the wiki. If I can do it, I will.

Anybody else that wants to submit or correct something but dont want to submit it yourself let me know. If hyperlinks to subtopics are needed indicate. If linking to outside references is desired show this also.

Cheers,
isoreader

Friends,

Some of you may know that I started an effort to define the quality body of knowledge (Q-BoK) back in June of 2003. (Was it THAT long ago?) Try as I would, I could not get senior ASQ staffers or volunteer leaders to understand and support my vision of defining and sharing the 50-year heritage of quality with the rest of the world.
Interesting. I didn't know of that effort on your part. I don't have any grand expectations for the wiki here, but I do hope it will contribute to the 'quality' knowledgebase.

marc,

Responding to your email, just email me or let me know what you need for the wiki. If I can do it, I will.

Anybody else that wants to submit or correct something but dont want to submit it yourself let me know. If hyperlinks to subtopics are needed indicate. If linking to outside references is desired show this also.
Thanks for the offer, and thanks for getting me to the point where I see it as a potential. I was afraid it would end up being a nightmare, particularly because of access issues and because of markup knowledge. It's not really very difficult, but it is definitely not as simple as using the forum software here.

I have received a lot of offers to help which came in by PM here in the forums, by e-mail, and of course offers in this thread. I hope to start setting up user 'accounts' later today. I spent over 12 hours yesterday cleaning up the user records of people who no longer have valid e-mail addresses, some of which haven't been here for a couple of years. I'm still sorta tired from the repetition as each record had to be changed individually one at a time.

I will also set up some sort of guidelines, but they will be pretty loose. For example, I expect linking to outside sources but I don't want it to be simply a 'listing' of outside resources.

Anyway, I appreciate all the feedback and will be working on getting this project under way.

hmmm... will this case sensitive issue affect the search function? it might make searching tricky if it does... i am not familiar with wiki but maybe you can consider adding something like a alphabetical index, which is a good reference and not case sensitive (just like those at the back of books)
The case sensitive issue is something I'm looking at, but as far as I can tell all the wikis have the same issue. If anyone knows differently let me know.

There is an alphabetical index, but the problem will be with Searching, I think.

This is the list of wiki accounts that I have set up so far. If you want an account, just let me know. For the new folks on the list, you should get an e-mail with your password. You can log in and change it to what ever you want. The password you receive is auto-generated by the software so it isn't very 'user friendly' to some folks.

Current wiki accounts:

akehrer
Al Dyer
Atul Khandekar
amjadrana
Auditguy
begum
Claes Gefvenberg
Craig H.
D_Scott - Sorry - A double entry by mistake.
D.Scott
Howard Atkins
isoreader
Jennifer Kirley
Jerome
Jim Wynne
Johnwalz
kaliko81
khamar
Manix
Paul Simpson
Randy
Scott Catron
sonflowerinwales
surendro
Wes Bucey

By the way - When I set up an account for someone, I have to set up accounts manually now because there is no way I can control spam and vandalism otherwise. As I have explained, right now we don't have the resources right now to allow anonymous signup and editing.

When I manually set up an account the software 'assumes' that my IP is the requesting IP and it uses the same e-mail text body that it uses when someone requests that their password be rest.

The e-mail with the password will look something like this:

> Someone (probably you, from IP address 000.000.000.000)
> requested that we send you a new Elsmar Cove Quality Wiki login password.
> The password for user "Xxxxxxxx" is now "1234abcd".
> You should log in and change your password now.

I changed the wording in the e-mail it sends to try to clarify a bit.

Sorry for the confusion.
*****************************
ALSO - I have started discussion thread for markup and other related questions: The Elsmar Cove Wiki Questions Discussion Thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15287)

Marc,

It is a great idea.

I would be interested in getting an account and would also like to contribute what ever I can.
thank you
Amjadrana

I just added you so you shuld be getting an e-mail with your password soon.

A suggestion if not already made, is to have a WAY for "contributors" who may not have the time nor inclination to post to the wiki send the written sections for example by email or by way of a specific forum.

It's a good idea. I would like to be able to contribute. Can I get an account?
Thanks

I'll set one up for you.

Also see: The Elsmar Cove Wiki Questions Discussion Thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15287)

Hi Marc,

I would be able to contribute. Can I get an account?

Thanks

Yes, by all means. The Wiki idea sorta stalled out. I'll get you set up by tomorrow morning. You'll get an e-mail.

I'd like to see some Wiki knowledgable people help get it going again.

Ummm... Boo Boo on my part. I didn't test the Wiki - vBulletin integration for editing and such before or after the migration. Scott has pointed out that the integration is broken.

I'm updating mediawiki and if that alone doesn't work I'll be hiring someone to fix the integration.

I apologise for the inconvenience (although not many people, if any, other than Scott and I, are doing any additions or editing).