An interesting read from SlashDot (aka /.) about discussion forums like the Elsmar Cove forums.

The Changing Role of Online Forums (http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=195345)

Your comments / opinions here will be appreciated. As most of you have undoubtedly noticed, the Wiki idea as a BOK (Body of Knowledge) here did not 'take off'. It was (and is) a good idea, but interest and participation has been extremely limited. Your ideas as to why?

One of my favourites: Wikis are fine as a knowledge database when the problems you have can be solved in a well-known way. Giving reference info in a forum is a bit more difficult, you could make 'sticky topics', but the info will get outdated, someone needs to keep track of it and update it. There it would be the best to put a wiki in. But if you are doing motorbike maintenance, or setting up a new router, unexpected things might happen and you often need information that can not be put in a certain form, and discussing this on a forum is the best way to solve the problem.

Another difference between forums and wikis is that in forums it always remains clear who contributed what, and who has a certain expertise on a certain area. This gives a larger sense of community. As it's rather difficult to browse the history of a wiki, you'll hardly ever find out any personal approach/speciality for a certain wiki-user. Furthermore, chit-chatting in a wiki is difficult as well, and it's too easy for someone to pull a prank on someone else. I have a bit of a bias to forums on this point, though (as moderator in a reasonably large DSL forum).

I'd say, let wikis and forums live side by side, happily ever after.

Your comments / opinions here will be appreciated. As most of you have undoubtedly noticed, the Wiki idea as a BOK (Body of Knowledge) here did not 'take off'. It was (and is) a good idea, but interest and participation has been extremely limited. Your ideas as to why?



Yes, I noticed that it really didn't take - but I think it is important. Wiki is a good place for the definistions and acronyms - therefore it is more static. And the boards a the place for interaction and discussions - a multi-directional flow of information. I agrre that both are good, they serve different purposes. This may be a strange analogy - we use Wiki like a dictionary, and the Cove like an enclopedia (sp).

Just my:2cents:

I think that both have their place. I need to take some time to actually acquaint myself to Wiki.

I've found what I need in the Cove for so long that I find myself limiting my searches there because I feel that I know and trust so many of the posters, even if the most we've done is some pm'ing.

I'm sure that our younger members are more comfortable that some of our older ones with Wiki, but overall most of us that frequent these forums are probably more willing to learn new technology than the average person. (But, those of us having chosen the quality field as our vocation are probably a little more willing to experiment with technology anyway)

Your comments / opinions here will be appreciated. As most of you have undoubtedly noticed, the Wiki idea as a BOK (Body of Knowledge) here did not 'take off'. It was (and is) a good idea, but interest and participation has been extremely limited. Your ideas as to why?


I think that social interaction is the reason. When I come to the Cove, a lot of the time it is to see "what's up", and I don't have a particular question in mind, but do learn about what ever all the other people are talking about.

For a Wiki session, I generally will have a specific question (although this is not always the case either).

In my particular situation I have no one else with which to discuss QA issues, and certainly no one else who has much knowledge of ISO 9000, quality mgt. systems, etc., is in my general vicinity, except when we are being audited. So the Cove has, and will continue to have, a very important place in my continuing Q education.

Not to mention it can be a little fun. The occasional off-topic but funny remark adds something that is missing in a Wiki article.

FWIW.

My personal opinion is that 'when all is said and done' we are sometimes too opinionated to agree on certain aspects of the various quality systems. Statisticians and gurus side against business minded professionals and Corrective vs Preventative squabbling causes on-line fisticuffs. We tend to over think some issues and provide our own solution to problems within the standards. Sometimes, to the piont of excluding an argument made by another contributor. It is an all too common problem and one I wish to address in a side thread, with moderators. I am in the midst of writing it now. I do not wish to offend anyone because this is MY opinion but one I have held for many months. If the standards were as 'simplistic' as a science based fact or chisled in stone, then there would be no need for the 'Cove' as a FORUM, as such, because we could then rely solely on a 'WIKI'...but the rub is that QA is such an ambiguous brute that we need the forums to discuss options and meanings and to share our experiences, documents and training methods.

I think that social interaction is the reason. When I come to the Cove, a lot of the time it is to see "what's up", and I don't have a particular question in mind, but do learn about what ever all the other people are talking about.

For a Wiki session, I generally will have a specific question (although this is not always the case either).

In my particular situation I have no one else with which to discuss QA issues, and certainly no one else who has much knowledge of ISO 9000, quality mgt. systems, etc., is in my general vicinity, except when we are being audited. So the Cove has, and will continue to have, a very important place in my continuing Q education.

Not to mention it can be a little fun. The occasional off-topic but funny remark adds something that is missing in a Wiki article.

FWIW.

I agree. My geographical position means that I also really only am able to interact here.
The ability to bounce ideas around is vital. Wiki, book etc it makes no difference they don't answer back and that is the best manner of learning.
:2cents: :2cents:

Your comments / opinions here will be appreciated. As most of you have undoubtedly noticed, the Wiki idea as a BOK (Body of Knowledge) here did not 'take off'. It was (and is) a good idea, but interest and participation has been extremely limited. Your ideas as to why?Don’t write it off yet. It may be that it has yet to take off. Wiki is a (relatively) new concept after all, and if you want to take part (add information), it is not quite as easy as jumping into a forum and start participating. Speaking for myself, I have been looking at it. I will probably give it a go soon, but there is a learning curve (Not very big, but it’s there) and people have limited time.

This may be a strange analogy - we use Wiki like a dictionary, and the Cove like an enclopedia (sp). I don’t find it in the least strange. It’s a good analogy

I think that social interaction is the reason. When I come to the Cove, a lot of the time it is to see "what's up", and I don't have a particular question in mind, but do learn about what ever all the other people are talking about.

For a Wiki session, I generally will have a specific question Exactly... You took the words right out of my mouth

In my particular situation I have no one else with which to discuss QA issues, and certainly no one else who has much knowledge of ISO 9000, quality mgt. systems, etc., is in my general vicinity, except when we are being audited. So the Cove has, and will continue to have, a very important place in my continuing Q education. The interaction with people who understand what you’re talking about, can offer hints, advice, support, and all that. That is what the Cove is to me.

The ability to bounce ideas around is vital Yes. That is where the forum beats the wiki hands down.

/Claes

Yes. That is where the forum beats the wiki hands down.


But in fact they are not in competion.
Each has its own uses and the covers want the benifits of the forum media and that is why we are here.
The Wiki people have not answered as they are at Wiki.

The Wiki people have not answered as they are at Wiki.Oh, I go there as well, and I find it useful. I just have not contribitued to it (yet).

/Claes

I am looking at a vBulletin 'hack' which, like the chat room, will allow any registered user to change the Wiki here without a different user name and login.

I'm not totally imprressed with the wiki, but I do thank Dscordian and several others for their efforts. I look at it as something extra. Doesn't hurt anything and in some cases might be advantagious.

Essentially, though, the forum was meant for discussion from the beginning, as opposed to a 'static text book'. So many situation specific interpretation(s) of requirements and such.

Social interaction is the key me. 100%.
I like to discuss things with my peers and read discussions between people.
Wiki is certainly a good idea as far as a reference, but it's dry. And you can't really ask specific questions on a wiki.
I come to forums such as the cove for interaction on a level that I cannot get with my co-workers.
I go to other forums (and admin one) for purely social interaction and to occasionally watch political mudslinging.

Never been a "chat" person though.

I think forums give you a "real time" feel while allowing you to consider your reponses. Chat really doesn't give you that time.

Something you may find interesting about online forums: From Jakob Nielsen's "AlertBox", October 9, 2006
:read:
Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html)

User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule:


90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute).
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don't have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they're commenting on occurs.

I doubt the numbers, at least here in the Elsmar Cove forums. I'd say 98% are lurkers, 1% contribute from time to time and 1% participate a lot.

One note - The reference is looking at 'Blogs' which are somewhat different than a forum.