On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:47:55 +0000, in uk.d-i-y Matt
wrote:

Just thought it might be worthwhile wikifying the normal FAQ or
splitting it into separate articles to kick this off?

I did suggest as much in the original thread but got no takers -
refers. Well it was in
Wordpress context then, but Wordpress/Wiki are similar contenders,
though Wiki seems to be getting the vote at the moment.

One thing I find difficulty with, and hasn't been answered yet, is
finding a complete contents list for articles in any of the examples
that have been mentioned. I hope I'm missing something, but in both
Wordpress and Wiki, it seems that you have to traverse all the links in
order to discover the totality of what's covered, whereas in the present
FAQ you have a clear contents list. So again the question I have is: can
a structure like the one I mentioned in the first thread be embodied in
a Wiki/Wordpress implementation? see
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/beta/FAQ_Pr...tents_List.doc
or
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/beta/FAQ_Pr...tents_List.pdf

A more important question is: How can the overall structure be
controlled so that articles are put in a logical place in a sub-tree in
the first place? I fear there will a tendency for new articles to be
just dropped onto the top level. If the 'master editors' don't like
where an article has been placed, will they be able to move it to a new
location? I am very worried by the statement in grunff's Wiki testbed
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/ that "... titles seem to be one thing that's
almost impossible to change in a wiki." If it's that hard to change a
title I imagine restructuring is even worse. I hope we don't have to
resort to deletion and recreation to achieve a 'move', that is, if you
*can* delete an article within the concept of edit history being
retained.

I'm convinced a wiki is the right way to go but you need to tie down
user rights as well as the system allows i.e anonymous edits aren't
ever allowed and every user has to provide a verifiable email address.

Most definitely one would need to exert control over who is given
accounts. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Drivel to register and edit is
asking for trouble. I would like to see new members' edits moderated (by
whom?) until such time as the moderator trusts them. And that moderation
ideally should not be a simple accept/reject criteria, but be an
interactive correspondence with the editors to offer feedback and
recommendations for bringing the style and presentation up to 'house
standard', in other word, the same as what happens with the main FAQ.

Being able to verify new contributors' email address and IP before
allowing them to have an editing powers is essential to prevent trolls
or the like getting in with fake IDs. A verification system, as used on
many sites, where you have to respond to an email sent to your address
should achieve that.

A group of sysops, preferably prolific (useful) contributors from here
would need to be appointed to stamp down on any Dribble/Bacon/Firth
type content that might sneak through.

Yes, there must be someone (or several) with the final say whether an
article is fit to publish or not. A facility for putting up drafts for
review/comment would be handy - or should those continue to be posted
here? or both?

While this site is not DIY related this url shows what can be done
with a wiki that doesn't look too much like wikipedia (it's running
standard mediawiki)

http://www.350z-tech.com/zwiki/Main_Page

That's a nicely done site but you still can't see what's below the top
level menu without actually traversing it. I suppose if that facility
does not exist in the Wiki, it wouldn't be too hard to have a piece of
non-Wiki software to traverse the site and create an index page.