The Elsmar Cove Wiki Questions Discussion Thread

[isoreader - 2006]

Scott,
Actually, when you posted about the formating, I thought of replying to you along the same lines you have done to me! So I must have misunderstood you. I gather now that content is the priority, which is right.

What threw me off was your first line
"1. Formatting the glossary pages so that they have a consistent look."

Much of the formatting is already in place, what is in need now is for content so that instead of red links we will see blue links. I think this is what you are saying right?

Folks, I see from the forum pages some good stuff that could go into the glossary, or could be linked from the glossary, this is the tedious work which must be done as priority.

So how to encourage ppl putting stuff on the wiki/glossary? I think you don't necessarily have to. You already have the "standalone articles" forum, although we can harvest data there, some information may require permission from authors or even futher vetting for accuracy etc not to mention some articles are in ppt format or some other format we cannot readily cut and paste. How about specifically request articles for putting on the glossary there?

Just my two cents.

[Marc]

Sorry this hs been languishing for a while. I've been doing a few things here and there but got intosome other things and this sorta slipped to the back burner, so to speak.

In Reply to Parent Post by isoreader

Much of the formatting is already in place, what is in need now is for content so that instead of red links we will see blue links. I think this is what you are saying right?

Folks, I see from the forum pages some good stuff that could go into the glossary, or could be linked from the glossary, this is the tedious work which must be done as priority.

Correct.

[Marc]

UPDATE: I have just installed a MediaWiki hack which should auto-magically log you in with your forum user name and password when you (registered visitors) visit the Wiki.

NOTE: Several of you already have an 'account' which I manually set up for you. I'm not sure yet how this will affect you. Since I'm also a manually entered user, as soon as I figure that out I'll post here.

[Marc]

Just to remind everyone, the Elsmar Cove BOK Wiki is integrated so if you are registered you can help. You will be 'auto-magically' be logged in --> Your forum user name and password are the same (in short, no log-in needed) if you are logged into the forum.

For those of you who know wiki markup, your help will be very much appreciated. I think the wiki can really help out if we can get some momentum going.

[Neil V.]

I just visited the Wiki for the first time a couple days ago. Looks good. Nice work to all those who contributed!

In no way do I claim to be an expert, just some thoughts from a casual Wikipedia user and curious member...

Is the idea to get it to function like wikipedia, with full page descriptions and internal/external links to other sites/wiki pages? Or to keep it to definitions only? (Definitions only would maybe be more true to the BOK theme)

Was consideration given to putting it outside the elsmar cove, or at least having a unique url like 'QuaBok' or something redirect to it? The reason I ask is it seems buried. What are the chances someone doing a search will come across the wiki?

I'm tiptoeing as i'm on very thin ice with this comment, but the ads running vertically on both sides are somewhat distracting. Getting familiar with the navigation around the wiki and the code is a challenge already. Could be intimidating to some. IMO

Just some thoughts and questions I had as I poked around. I'm sure much thought has gone into the site that i'm unaware of.

[Marc]

This goes back several years. At one time there was a request for a Wiki. The problem was integration with vBulletin so people didn't need different accounts. I didn't want an 'open' wiki because I have enough to do without watching a wiki for spam and such.

A couple of years ago an integration solution was developed and sold. The fellow who did it 'disappeared' about a year ago and it was never supported very well. Technically the integration 'mod' was abandoned. Actually, I *assumed* wrongly that that last (recent) 'significant' upgrade to vBulletin would break the mod. Luckily it didn't. But then again, it's an older version of Mediawiki. The newer versions of Mediawiki will not work with the 'mod'.

OK - So - Scott set it up and we got some entries in, but for all intents and purposes it has been abandoned. People are not very interested in the wiki, in large part because (I believe) 1. It does take coding knowledge, and 2. Most people come here to ask questions.

If I thought a Wiki would really be used I would have no problem de-linking it from the forum software integration, upgrading to the latest Mediawiki version, and going from there. My only hesitation is I myself am not that familiar with Mediawiki and all their coding. I'd have to pay someone to go in and 'clean things up', so to speak. Now again, if I thought it would really be used, I would do that. I just don't think many, if any, people that visit here are interested in it.

As to the thought behind it, you know how it goes. A suggestion or request is acted on but the project just falls through. The original thought on my end was more of a BOK. I did, and do, like the idea, but that doesn't make it work.

[Neil V.]

That explains a lot. Thanks!

Maybe someday....

[Pancho]

I think there are a couple of reasons that the Cove's wiki has not taken off.

1) The benefits of wiki collaboration become most evident when there are clear goals to the effort. Even in the Cove's wiki progress came when the contributors set themselves the goal of completing the glossary, but later, with that done the wiki was abandoned.

2) There is an initial barrier to use of a wiki that is easy to break in a small group, but hard in a large one.

Here's an article that talks about the problems with wikis among large groups of strangers. Quoting:

> Time is scarce. People will eventually comment on articles, but writing a comment should be very simple and straightforward. They also prefer to interact in a highly visible place (such as under the article on the home page), rather than on a less visible, less visited community forum.
> ...using wikis to create collective texts about "big issues" is difficult...Most of our audience is still not used to the idea of collaborating to write a text with other people whom they have never actually met.
> Readers so far appear to prefer familiar formats, like forums, to wikis.