Editing Wiki Articles Written By Others........ettiquette....

[domonsura]

just a quick note on this....

When someone goes to the trouble of writing a wiki article explaining how it can be done, i believe that great care needs to be taken when deciding whether to edit the original article - or write your own defining an alternative method......

A while ago I wrote a wiki on keg spear removal, showing how to do so without damaging the vessel........ and this evening I was dismayed to find that certain parties had edited it...making the article very different and encouraging completely un-necessary steps that resulted in damage to the keg vessel. That wasn't what I was trying to achieve when I wrote the article, and totally contradicts what I would recommend...as damage to the vessel is EXACTLY what I was trying to show how to avoid as I have seen far too many people cause un-necessary damage......

It's just as easy to write a NEW wiki article, you don't need to butcher one that clearly outlines a process correctly....wiki articles get edited to correct clear mistakes/mis-information........not just because you think you can do it quicker/more rip/shit & bust.......

Wiki articles are not there to be edited willy nilly......show some respect for the time that people have taken to write something in a particular context, and only edit if it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to maintain complete accuracey....or I for one won't bother to write anything else down if I think that it will say something completely different or 'recommend un-necessary damage' in 12 months time because someone has messed with it.....

 

[pokolbinguy]

I haven't read the WIKI that Domosura is talking about but if the above is true geeze get some respect.

Do you have a link to the article?

 

[matti]

Here is a plausible solution IMHO

Articles in Wiki are to be there to help brewers and need to be factual.
They need to be supported by common knowledge. In some cases an article may need to be proven by experience or
have a source that can be referred to.

Critic is good, BUT
Articles that have been accepted by the moderators should be protected from tampering.
In the light of new discoveries the originator should be informed before removing or altering a wiki.

I also would be disappointed and I fully agree with Domonsura.
Lucky for us that he is such a polite fella

 

[Aaron]

The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can edit it at any time. If you notice something you think is incorrect you can correct it. A wiki allows you to check who has made edits and what edits they have made. This allows you to make up your mind about which information to rely on also.

 

[domonsura]

If you notice something you think is incorrect you can correct it.

Exactly...........but there's a difference between factually incorrect and alternative way of doing it. Alternative way of doing it requires a new article and perhaps a link to the new one from the old to give alternative options, not an edit of the original article so it conveys an entirely different result but appearing to come from the original author......

 

[mika]

Each wiki article has a discussion topic (doesn't it ?), which I would have thought would be the proper medium for such a discussion.
I've edited wiki articles (OK, maybe just the one) but twas only to add additional information.
If you're going to re-write it I think it should be discussed before someone's carefully thought out information is trashed.

 

[InCider]

If you're going to re-write it I think it should be discussed ...

Spot on. That's what the discussion thread is for! Then there can be a collaborative effort to edit the wiki, not just changed in one persons opinion at their whim. In the wiki being discussed, the point of the original has been lost and now there is only the alternative - surely we are now missing one side of the story being told...

Edit, discuss, collaborate and work together!

my 2c.

InCider.

 

[chovain]

Without commenting on this specific case, I'd like to point out that there would be far less risk to editing articles if we had a proper wiki. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Nothing compares to the feature-set of grown-ups' wiki software like MediaWiki.

With the current software, I can't find any way of seeing what was changed between revisions, short of comparing them side by side. With real wiki software, you can just select a revision, and see exactly which bits they changed. If you don't like it, you can just revert their changes with the click of a button.

If there's too much overhead in editing articles, or too much fear that you'll break something, then no-one will ever correct errors in existing articles.

We wouldn't have the same problems that wikis like Wikipedia have, either. I'm not saying we don't have our fair share of pissing comps here, but we have enough moderators to whap people over the head if they're not behaving.

 

[bugwan]

This is why everything written on Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt. My wife is a science teacher - an unbelievable number of her students take their work directly from Wikipedia...until she failed a couple and that fixed that...

I understand your frustration Domonsura, but in this case perhaps a Wiki entry wasn't the best idea. Maybe an 'airlocked' (or sticky) thread would have been better to preserve your original article. Another option could have been a blog entry I guess...

 

[domonsura]

That's what I though the discussion topics were for - so you could discuss what you thought was wrong with something or proposed additions prior to the original article being altered.
Maybe I'm being naieve, (although I do understand how wiki works...) but I think it's polite to discuss changes before they are made. I won't be contributing to the wiki again, I don't have a lot of time now, and the keg spear removal article overall took a couple of hours by the time I had taken photos, written it and mucked around with it a bit until I was happy it was easy to follow. That's just a little too much time to spend to discover later on that because of un-discussed editing the article now gives a different message and an overall tone of 'I don't really care if the keg gets damaged' ....

Perhaps you're right bugwan, I'll any future articles on my own site from now on I think, safe from rogue editors.....

 

[blackbock]

I noticed your little dispute Domonsura, and I can see why your'e annoyed. But maybe the person in question was just trying to contribute something extra. Maybe...

The same thing happened with the Yeast Wiki, someone changed the title, changed the scope and since then hardly anyone has added anything in over a year. It's way too broad in my opinion, but if you want to write a book on something, just go and find a publisher!

 

[peas_and_corn]

One issue with the wiki is that it doesn't have wiki software- if someone makes an erroneous edit in a wiki, the way to fix it is to go into the page's history and click the 'undo' button next to the edit. However, this is not available with this setup.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

OMG...some things on Wikipedia are not true.... :unsure:


My life is over.....next you will be telling me that Home and Away is not really a documentry

 

[Screwtop]

OMG...some things on Wikipedia are not true.... :unsure:


My life is over.....next you will be telling me that Home and Away is not really a documentry

Me too, lookin for a bridge, don't try to stop me. ......... er maybe on second thoughts I should just ad it to my Feelings Calendar :lol:

 

[Jye]

er maybe on second thoughts I should just ad it to my Feelings Calendar :lol:

:lol:

 

[Adamt]

Here's an (non-editable) excerpt from the proverbial grand poobah of Wiki's mouth:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information.

This can be accessed from any article when you click "Cite this article" on the left hand menu bar.

I'd also like to echo the thoughts that any major removal of wiki material should be discussed (and should be recoverable), additions to current material should be well thought out and in context with the rest of the article. If it doesn't fit, make a new article.

 

[Jye]

citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade.

I refereed a paper for a well know journal and they had cited wiki (twice)... I laughed and then cried for them :lol:

 

[NRB]

I wonder when the party responsible will own up?

 

[PistolPatch]

Totally with you Dom :icon_cheers: You have drawn attention to a fundamental problem here. Good on ya!

I think I have at least the start of a solution. Of course this will require a para or two!

There was early debate here on whether the Wikki should be modified or not. If my memory serves me correctly, the original intention was to have it modified but due to a lack of contributions, no modification won out. I think this is a most serious error.

I think the Wikki should be the most highly moderated and trusted area of AHB.

What to do though??? There are many valid reasons why an AHB Wikki cannot be a wikki as we would hope. Software is just one. But, what can we do?

Here's an idea I think will work with the existing software, structure and audience base.....

Change the name of the Wikki to, "Priming Ground."

This means that you submit an, 'article,' to the, 'Priming Ground.' A discussion thread is automatically developed. People can make suggestions willy nilly in that thread but the article should still only be considered by readers as being in the developmental stage. If there is no debate within say seven days, then the article should be moved immediately to, 'Articles,' which should appear immediately below the, 'Air-Locked,' threads in a given forum. (An article such as yours Dom, should have attracted little, if any argument, and should have been moved up to, 'Articles,' quite quickly.)

In the cases where there is debate, then suggested improvements should be written well and then posted and discussed in the discussion thread. Hopefully logic and democracy would prevail here and a brilliant final article could become an, 'article,' in the correct forum with the contributors given appropriate recognition.

Currently, the Wikki has no appeal to me. I have seen some great stuff written there but I rarely look there and I would never contribute to it in its current form.

Good fun having a ramble here, hope it is of some value (better be - been fanatical about the above subject since I joined AHB!) but my Isinglass is ready now so I better go and sparkle up a few brews.

Spot ya,
Pat