Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance BOK (Body of Knowledge) Wiki

[Scott Catron]

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 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:

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' 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 where the look of articles is defined;

and their page for 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) and can do most basic functions - starting pages, adding links, adding pictures - and would be willing to help as things move along.

 

[Marc]

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.

 

[Scott Catron]

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 yesterday and will do more as I have time.

 

[Marc]

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.

 

[Jim Wynne]

This is my intention. I worked on Abiline Paradox yesterday and will do more as I have time.

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

 

[Marc]

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.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

 

[Scott Catron]

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

It's cobbled from the Wikipedia article, the definition on the Quality wiki (which is truncated for some reason - will have to fix that) and the forum thread (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.

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."

 

[Jim Wynne]

It's cobbled from the Wikipedia article, the definition on the Quality wiki (which is truncated for some reason - will have to fix that) and the forum thread (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.

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.

 

[Marc]

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%.