 Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Bubba Suess » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:05 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Here is my idea...

Have a small location at the bottom of route, mountain, and canyon pages where members can add additional content for updated conditions. Maybe it is current snow conditions, updated driving directions, whatever. Anyone can edit this section, including the owner. The owner could delete stuff here (same as everyone else) and they could move stuff into the main page if they wish.

Ideally the system could track who made edits here. This way if spam makes it into here then deleting the user will delete the edit. Also I think the section would be text and links only. No pics would be allowed. And the font could even be a size smaller than the page itself so it doesn't look like it is part of the main work, but rather additional information others have added.

Comments and additions being on a seperate page is a real problem. Especially for new users. That needs to change.

Included in my idea... pages will not be wiki.


I think this is a good idea, and expressed said sentiment the last time this issue came up. I am 100% against open wiki. However, I do not think most people utilize the 'additions and corrections' sections on most pages. It lacks visibility so you never know what you are going to get or if it is relevant. Simply moving the 'additions' part of the 'additions and corrections' to the bottom of the page where it can be visible would be a step up, I think. At the bottom of the page, it will not disrupt the flow or the creative element but it will allow people to post updated beta and even useful pictures to a page.
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 103 posts

The following user would like to thank Bubba Suess for this post
Dean, mrchad9

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:08 pm

Montana Matt wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:Matt has some good ideas with page adoption. I really think it is a separate component than the 'user updates on dynamic conditions' section we are proposing here. It's a separate process and mechanism for sure. I'll start a thread on it.

I will edit the ideas on UserVoice later today to reflect this as well (unless that's what you were talking about doing Chad?).

If you edit it on UserVoice that would be good. What I was talking about, and just did, was start a thread on the topic. Folks should continue to use UserVoice, but sometimes a thread generates more discussion and back and forth than UserVoice does. Plus some folks might notice it on the homepage that miss it in UserVoice.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1222 times in 829 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Josh Lewis » Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:24 pm

Montana Matt wrote:
gimpilator wrote:When someone posts additions/corrections to one of my pages, I verify the information and then incorporate that into the page.

But not everyone does that. And not all visitors to the site know to look at the additions/corrections section. One of the proposed ideas would essentially be taking the additions/corrections section and incorporating it into main part of the page. That's all.


I very much agree. I've put in a good addition to a page in the corrections area... ignored. :? Lets be honest with our selves, most people if they see a bad page that does not provide the information they want, they close out of it. A few of us die hard fans will look into the additions and corrections. Until I'm proven otherwise, I don't see why a little wiki box near the bottom of a page would be "damaging". As someone who has pumped up my pages with lots of info, I'd be happy if folks could add more little nuggets of wisdom in the page at the bottom section.
My Websites: Personal Website · PeakBeta · AceMaps
User Avatar
Josh Lewis

 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Lynnwood, Washington, The Cloudiest Place on Earth, United States
Thanked: 669 times in 433 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby BobSmith » Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:47 pm

I'm against it. I'm not averse to being edited (I'm a professional writer, after all). However, interference of the sort created through wiki is not something with which I'd wish to struggle. I wouldn't have the time to devote to constant outside editing and nit-picking.
User Avatar
BobSmith

 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:42 am
Location: Matthews, North Carolina, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:03 pm

BobSmith wrote:I'm against it. I'm not averse to being edited (I'm a professional writer, after all). However, interference of the sort created through wiki is not something with which I'd wish to struggle. I wouldn't have the time to devote to constant outside editing and nit-picking.

No one talking about editing your content.

Ugh. Not sure why folks cannot understand the proposal.

Poor form from you on the thread title gimpilator. It is misleading people.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1222 times in 829 posts

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Josh Lewis

MrChad's Proposal

Postby Sarah Simon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:27 pm

Change the title of the thread, Mr. Chad, to help clarify your message and reframe your proposal???
Go climb a mountain
User Avatar
Sarah Simon

 
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Location: Black Forest, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 240 times in 108 posts

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Bob Sihler » Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:37 pm

People, what is under consideration (and likely to happen) is almost identical to the option most people preferred in a discussion about a year ago.

There would be another section on a page, not removable by the owner, that would be open to anyone to post about conditions, fee changes, road access, etc. It is up to the page owner to include it or not. No one will have access to other parts of the page. I believe the page owner can even delete the additions.

Honestly, I think Chad and Matt have been clear about this in this thread. I think the word "Wiki" makes many of us on this site see red and not look at the details. I've been firmly against true wiki-style myself, and I'm fine with this new feature.

Basically, all it is is putting the Additions and Corrections part as an open section on the main page.

The rest stays the same. We have heard the membership loud and clear that there is no real desire for anything beyond that.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7864
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 2188 times in 1224 posts

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
Dean

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:04 pm

I can't change the thread title Sarah. Only a forum mod or gimilator can. He has picked a devisive (and misleading) title intentionally so that his POV is supported.

Bob Sihler wrote:There would be another section on a page, not removable by the owner, that would be open to anyone to post about conditions, fee changes, road access, etc. It is up to the page owner to include it or not. No one will have access to other parts of the page. I believe the page owner can even delete the additions.

That is not entirely true for my proposal Bob. My suggestion is that it is at the bottom of every mountain, route, canyon, and area page. Not up to the owner. But the owner can delete content there (if it gets out of date if is was conditions updates, or if they decide to include it in the main page, or if they just don't like it). The owner can decide to included the content in the main page or not.

And... no one would have access to the main page but the owner.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1222 times in 829 posts

Re: Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Postby Marcsoltan » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:13 pm

What's wrong with the existing section "additions & corrections?" The only problem we have is that when someone adds something to this section the owner of the page is never alerted. If we had a a system in which the owner of the page receives a message, similar to a comment, then he knows someone has added something, or corrected something. Then he/she can act upon it. How many of us have the time or energy to go through all of our pages to see what people are adding? Not too many of us, I certainly don't.

There is, and has been for a long time, a great deal of controversy about ratings of technical climbs, not to mention many other aspects of technical climbing. Every technical climber seems to have a different opinion. Why are we muddying the waters by adding a section on the bottom of the page for every Tom, Dick and Harry to jump in with their own opinions? If they are new to summitpost, they can always comment, like they have always been able to.

I just don't like people to mess with my pages in a Wiki system.
User Avatar
Marcsoltan

 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:36 am
Location: California, United States
Thanked: 78 times in 28 posts

Re: Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Postby norco17 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:19 pm

There is already three open wiki sections on a page. One is additions and corrections, the other is comments, and the last is the climbers log. I think these might be made more visible similar to mountian projects comments at the bottom of a page. However, I agree that for the most part this is not needed on summitpost.
User Avatar
norco17

 
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:53 am
Location: riverside, California, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 122 posts

The following user would like to thank norco17 for this post
Marcsoltan

Re: Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:41 pm

Marcsoltan wrote:I just don't like people to mess with my pages in a Wiki system.

No one has suggested that.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1222 times in 829 posts

Re: Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Postby Scott » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:10 am

No one has suggested that.


I think including the word "wiki" in any proposed change is bound to rile. Maybe just call it "editable updates section". :wink: The original title was misleading since this kind of thing has really been proposed.

After reading through it, it seems to have merit. Having the additions and corrections at the bottom of the page would help indicate which pages should be put up for adoption; i.e. many additions and corrections have not been addressed and incorporated into the text.

I know some of us have pointed out gross inaccuracies to a page in the form of additions and corrections. Even after pointing out the inaccuracies, people will still vote 10/10 because they don't bother to read the additions/corrections when voting. Having them at the bottom could be helpful to voters.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7730
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 836 times in 436 posts

The following user would like to thank Scott for this post
Josh Lewis, mrchad9

Re: To Wiki or not to Wiki

Postby Bob Sihler » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:22 am

mrchad9 wrote:I can't change the thread title Sarah. Only a forum mod or gimilator can. He has picked a devisive (and misleading) title intentionally so that his POV is supported.

Bob Sihler wrote:There would be another section on a page, not removable by the owner, that would be open to anyone to post about conditions, fee changes, road access, etc. It is up to the page owner to include it or not. No one will have access to other parts of the page. I believe the page owner can even delete the additions.

That is not entirely true for my proposal Bob. My suggestion is that it is at the bottom of every mountain, route, canyon, and area page. Not up to the owner. But the owner can delete content there (if it gets out of date if is was conditions updates, or if they decide to include it in the main page, or if they just don't like it). The owner can decide to included the content in the main page or not.

And... no one would have access to the main page but the owner.


My wording wasn't clear, and that led to you misunderstanding my post.

Actually, what I was trying to explain is exactly what you have described, and what Matt described in a recent email. However, my "it" that the owner can include or not seems to refer to the section when I meant it to refer to the changes (the owner having the choice to incorporate the changes or not).

An F for the English teacher today. :oops:
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7864
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 2188 times in 1224 posts

Re: Small section at the bottom of pages to be wiki?

Postby mrchad9 » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:24 am

I see that possibility now Bob. Rather than an F, I'll give you a 6/10, so you actualy get a 71%.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1222 times in 829 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/small-sections-of-sp-pages-to-be-wiki-t64277-15.html
www.summitpost.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-35
73133
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MKLT2U4QHTFBSCHC6KIK4U6CWHDW76A5
<urn:uuid:53709ce5-06e7-4278-88ce-9928f88847b9>
2015-09-02T13:57:23Z
104.130.126.110
sha1:6BP2RPEQEZLZ5ZUNYKEJSPMTKROZHENF
<urn:uuid:ad766277-949c-4d84-82d8-ade2a0088cc2>
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/small-sections-of-sp-pages-to-be-wiki-t64277-15.html
length
response
<urn:uuid:b3b574b7-0201-49fd-9a93-af1944d2d1ec>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-96-226.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf