Kickstarting the wiki

[japher]

Firstly, I just want to disclaim this post with a couple of comments.

1. I'm very grateful to the staff and contributors on this site and think they do a great job.
2. Any criticism that this post might contain is meant as purely constructive and will hopefully drive some debate rather than cause offense or start a flame war.

So, now that's out the way...

Does anyone else here feel like the wiki is not living up to its potential?

Given the size and activity of the community here, I can't help but think that the wiki seems to have fizzled since its introduction. As I'm a strong wiki advocate, I find this pretty sad. I think the potential of a good DIY wiki working along side the forums is huge with accurate information organised, recorded and constantly improved.

I think one of the main reasons that the wiki is not functioning well is a lack of knowledge in the community about what a wiki is and how it should be used. There's not yet a consistent approach to what a wiki article should look like. Some articles are just links to the forum, others show a clear misunderstanding of how content should be organised (e.g. /Gardening - don't like to single anyone out, this is just a typical poor wiki topic).

I think that one of the ways to help tackle this would be to try and organise a small wiki task-force who's job it is to:

1. Organise and transfer swathes of content from the forums into succinct wiki articles.
2. Evangelise and promote the wiki throughout the forums. This would include pointing forum users at wiki articles when the help they need already exists, and also encouraging potential wiki contributors to add their forum wisdom to the wiki when appropriate.

Although the wiki is about collaborative authoring (as such, content is not owned by any individual), in the past I've seen how one or more 'Editors' of this kind (think of a magazine Editor) when the wiki is young can really help to lay the ground work for a successful wiki and educate contributors to become good Editors themselves.

If 3 to 5 people spent a month doing this in their spare time, this might be the shot in the arm the wiki needed to get enthusiasm from the community going.

The next problem which, at the risk of ****ing off the admins here, I think is holding back the the wiki and stifling the content/participation is: the wiki engine is poor. For any new wiki nowadays, there's only one choice of wiki engine, and that is MediaWiki. The tool-set and features of this engine not only make authoring pages easy, they also help to drive the overall structure of the wiki in the right direction (even if those controlling the wiki initially are new to the format).

Migration to a new wiki engine can be a headache, however the benefit can be a living wiki over a dead one. With the amount of content in the diynot wiki (i.e. a small amount), I think it's a no-brainer. I'm not for a moment saying the sticking with a poorer wiki engine means the wiki cannot thrive, but if you give users the best tools available, it really helps.

So, does anyone else have similar opinions? Does anyone think I'm talking a load of cr*p?

PS. To those that have already been doing hard work on the wiki (e.g. there's some great work going in to Electrics) thank you! I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the above

 

[masona]

So, does anyone else have similar opinions? Does anyone think I'm talking a load of cr*p?

No not at all, I didn't understand wiki at first but slowly learning what it's all about and I don't understand how anyone can edit your own post unless I have got that wrong. I think it's a couple of things, people might be frighten encase of wrong information input or it maybe just very time assuming to set a page up

You're right, wiki is a good tool and it would be easier because it would mean saving have to answer the same regular questions on the forum

 

[DIYnot]

Hi japher,

Thanks for your thoughts about the wiki, it makes interesting reading. I agree that so far the wiki hasn't lived up to the potential it could offer.

The original decision about the current wiki system, was to select a wiki which is simple to use and lacked complexity, this is a trade off which means less features. We certainly wouldn't rule out a move to MediaWiki in the future though.

I agree about the transfer of content from the forum to the wiki. In fact work is already in progress for 'nomination' of forum content/topics to be placed into the wiki. This creates a league table of forum content which has been nominated for wiki conversion.

I have great hopes for the wiki and would certainly appreciate any help you (or anyone else!) can offer.

 

[Hoovie]

Hi,

You may well want to ignore me as this is my first post here, but here goes anyway ....

I think the Wiki idea is a great one. I would also agree that one of the key things that will be holding back its growth is the choice of engine.

It is a bit like the Betamax v VHS battle with videotape standards (if people can remember that far back) - it doesn't matter if one wiki engine is a bit better then another, momentum and familiarity is what will drive its population.

Example: I am, in my own work area, in the process of creating a large amount of Content (not DIY related at all) and had the choice of 2 Wiki engines - the one you have here, and MediaWiki (as used by Wikipedia most notably).

I would not expect people who are in their spare time are adding content to learn multiple editing codes and methods, so I chose to use MediaWiki as it is the one most familiar to my audience, who I am hoping will add their own content and updates also.

I would think the same is true here and a move to MediaWiki would provide a boost to this project. I would even contribute content myself

FWIW, I am an experienced DIYer and have put my hand - with varying interest and success - to most areas around the house.

Cheerio for now.

H.

 

[Hoovie]

So, does anyone else have similar opinions? Does anyone think I'm talking a load of cr*p?

No not at all, I didn't understand wiki at first but slowly learning what it's all about and I don't understand how anyone can edit your own post unless I have got that wrong. I think it's a couple of things, people might be frighten encase of wrong information input or it maybe just very time assuming to set a page up

You're right, wiki is a good tool and it would be easier because it would mean saving have to answer the same regular questions on the forum

One of the benefits of a Wiki is also its potential downfall - by default, anyone CAN edit anyone elses content/post.
With the Internet awash with mischief-makers, a protection method should be employed to prevent inappropriate changing of content.
Giving anyone registered the right to edit the Wiki is flawed as registration is automated so anyone could potntially register, then totally screw up the wiki in a very short time.

I would humbly suggest - as a user with a massive 2 posts - that editing rights are assigned to members who have attained a certain level of credibiity - probably by achieving a certain number of posts AND have forum membership for a certain length of time (this will prevent someone flood-posting to get to the required post count and THEN going on the rampage)

H.

 

[DIYnot]

Hi Hoovie,

Thanks for your input and welcome to the site.

I take on board your comments about Mediawiki, and it is certainly something I am looking into.

Currently, you require a DIYnot membership to add/edit content, admittedly not a great barrier, but so far there hasn't been a problem and the current wiki (and Mediawiki) support individual and batch roll backs in the case of abuse. If it was something that became a problem obviously things would change.

 

[Hoovie]

The Rollbacks are a handy feature

I *think* there are editors out there which will take files - probably in Word and convert them into your chosen wiki format ready to copy and paste in.

Well, I am hoping there are anyway, as I want one !!! - if not, it is a great opportunity for someone to develop one