Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance BOK (Body of Knowledge) Wiki

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
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.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
BTW - I filled in headers for letters C through Z. I *hope* I did it right.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
I *think* I have eveything transferred. Scott (and others), how about a critique?
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
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.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
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!
 

Scott Catron

True Artisan
Super Moderator
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.

I also took what Wikipedia has about 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
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Scott_Catron said:
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.

I also took what Wikipedia has about 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).

Scott_Catron said:
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]
 

Scott Catron

True Artisan
Super Moderator
Jim Wynne said:
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' 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?

Jim Wynne said:
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.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
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.
 
Top Bottom