Following on from the discussion in the thread "Article on Pumps" I've been
wondering if we could have an area of the wiki for articles that are so
seriously 'under construction' that they should be kept separate from
articles which are reasonably comprehensive and accurate. That way a
casual visitor to the wiki doesn't get put off by dipping into articles
which are half finished, but potential contrubutors who want to write an
article on something can add to a partly-constructed article rather than
starting from scratch.

As an experiment I've moved an article I've been working on, on showers,
to ZZZ/Showers
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=ZZZ/Showers

It's not quite as good as having a separate namespace in the wiki but it
means that it appears at the end of the all-pages listing
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages

I've also created an 'Under Construction' template (imaginatively titled
'Under-construction' :-)) which I've applied to this article.

What do people think of this?

--
John Stumbles

Bob the builder - it'll cost 'yer
Bob the builder - loadsa dosh

John Stumbles wrote:
Following on from the discussion in the thread "Article on Pumps" I've been
wondering if we could have an area of the wiki for articles that are so
seriously 'under construction' that they should be kept separate from
articles which are reasonably comprehensive and accurate. That way a
casual visitor to the wiki doesn't get put off by dipping into articles
which are half finished, but potential contrubutors who want to write an
article on something can add to a partly-constructed article rather than
starting from scratch.

As an experiment I've moved an article I've been working on, on showers,
to ZZZ/Showers
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=ZZZ/Showers

It's not quite as good as having a separate namespace in the wiki but it
means that it appears at the end of the all-pages listing
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages

I've also created an 'Under Construction' template (imaginatively titled
'Under-construction' :-)) which I've applied to this article.

What do people think of this?

Seems ok, although I expect the template alone is probably enough... if
you arrive at an article and the first thing you see is a message saying
it is not done, then you can't expect too much from it regardless of its
name.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

I've also created an 'Under Construction' template (imaginatively titled
'Under-construction' :-)) which I've applied to this article.

What do people think of this?

Seems ok, although I expect the template alone is probably enough... if
you arrive at an article and the first thing you see is a message saying
it is not done, then you can't expect too much from it regardless of its
name.


It's a WIKI. Every page is *always* going to be under construction. There is no
point stating the bleeding obvious ;-)

-- JJ

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:01:38 +0000, Jason wrote:

It's a WIKI. Every page is *always* going to be under construction.
There is no point stating the bleeding obvious ;-)

I guess I wasn't clear in my post: the template does acknowledge that wiki
pages are almost by definition always under construction. I was trying to
indicate the difference between a page that's more like muddy field with a
few survey posts knocked into the ground than a building which needs a few
bits of second fit & decoration left to complete.


--
John Stumbles

I used to be forgetful but now I ... um ....

There is no point stating the bleeding obvious ;-)

As a reader rather than a writer I'm inclined to think that there is
some point in stating the obvious - especially when the subject may
involve sharp tools, large currents, heavy weights, big holes, ......
The readers of the Wiki are not *all* widely experienced and deeply
knowledgeable. And some may even have done stupid things despite them
being manifestly stupid? (Me puts hand up reluctantly.)

--
Robin

On 30 Jun, 09:58, John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:01:38 +0000, Jason wrote:

It's a WIKI. Every page is *always* going to be under construction.
There is no point stating the bleeding obvious ;-)

I guess I wasn't clear in my post: the template does acknowledge that wiki
pages are almost by definition always under construction. I was trying to
indicate the difference between a page that's more like muddy field with a
few survey posts knocked into the ground than a building which needs a few
bits of second fit & decoration left to complete.


It may turn out to be just one more thing for argument to occur over,
time to be wasted on, and contributors to not follow or revert.
Telling others how to write articles is always a recipe for trouble.
Its one of the ways mods unintentionally kill forums. Suggestions can
work sometimes.

It may be better to have a link at the bottom of all pages to a
disclaimer that explains why safety critical info from a wiki should
never be relied on. That applies to all pages, not just a few. There
is a para in 'House wiring for beginners' already explaining why.
Maybe that could become its own article on wikis and safety.

Wikis are by their nature incomplete, in development, subject to
differences of opinion and ever changing.

Another neater options may be to append 'under construction' or
'unfinished' to a page name when most of the info is missing, and
remove it once most parts of the skeleton are filled in. However the
great majority are not in the half-done stage, so I dont think there
is a problem to begin with. Thing about wikis is that unfinished
articles encourage visitors to contribute.

If someone has the impression that wiki articles are the Final Say-so
then they need to know a bit more about how wikis work.


NT

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:13:20 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Seems ok, although I expect the template alone is probably enough... if
you arrive at an article and the first thing you see is a message saying
it is not done, then you can't expect too much from it regardless of its
name.

OK maybe I've got it arse about tit: rather than relegating
stub/incomplete/unchecked etc articles to limbo (which let's face it ain't
gonna happen because nobody's going to do that to their own work and it
would seem offensive to do that to others') perhaps we should go the other
way and award some brownie points to articles that /are/ reasonably
complete and peer-reviewed? And as part of the QC/approval mechanism we
could then include each newly-approved article in an index of the Great
and the Good, which could be the Acceptable Face of the Wiki :-)

Maybe that would go some way to addressing concerns expressed when
this wiki was first mooted about the anything-goes nature versus the
peer-reviewd process of putting up articles on the FAQ.

For starters I'd suggest as candidate articles (to pick a few):
cable crimping
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Cable_crimping
central heating (and sub-articles in this topic)
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...entral_Heating
electricity outside
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ricity_outside
plastering
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...nner%27s_Guide
pressure washers
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ure_washer_FAQ
to include if they get a few Yeay votes.

In the longer run I'd hope that as people bring new articles to the
attention of the ng and they're reworked in light of feedback from the
group (as happened with the cable crimping article IIRC) they'd
automatically get okayed as approved when everyone's reasonably happy with
the end result.

--
John Stumbles

Bob the builder - it'll cost 'yer
Bob the builder - loadsa dosh

John Stumbles wrote:

would seem offensive to do that to others') perhaps we should go the other
way and award some brownie points to articles that /are/ reasonably
complete and peer-reviewed? And as part of the QC/approval mechanism we
could then include each newly-approved article in an index of the Great
and the Good, which could be the Acceptable Face of the Wiki :-)

Could have a little standardised graphic (sort of horizontal bar graph
type thing perhaps - red when short going through to green at maximum)
that shows the level of review and checking the article has had. Each
article could simply link the appropriate graphic in the intro. Clicking
the graphic could give some explanation of the meaning;

______________
|XX____________|

Article is still in the process of being authored - this version is a
work in progress - disregard for now.

______________
|XXXX__________|

Article complete but has not been checked it may contain serious errors
or ommisions

______________
|XXXXXX________|

Article is complete and has been proof read but has not been peer
reviewed it may contain serious errors or ommisions.
______________
|XXXXXXXX______|

Article is complete and has been proof read and peer reviewed. There are
some areas awaiting rework.
______________
|XXXXXXXXXX____|

Article is complete and has been peer reviewed. All review actions have
been incorporated.

etc.

Maybe that would go some way to addressing concerns expressed when
this wiki was first mooted about the anything-goes nature versus the
peer-reviewd process of putting up articles on the FAQ.

For starters I'd suggest as candidate articles (to pick a few):
cable crimping

to include if they get a few Yeay votes.

Yup, could work....

In the longer run I'd hope that as people bring new articles to the
attention of the ng and they're reworked in light of feedback from the
group (as happened with the cable crimping article IIRC) they'd
automatically get okayed as approved when everyone's reasonably happy with
the end result.

As a more general point, I get the feeling that some people are
reluctant to contribute articles at the moment since they fear they will
get hacked about with too much. Some sort of documented review process
may go some way to reduce those fears.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:51:39 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:

Could have a little standardised graphic (sort of horizontal bar graph
type thing perhaps - red when short going through to green at maximum)
that shows the level of review and checking the article has had. Each
article could simply link the appropriate graphic in the intro. Clicking
the graphic could give some explanation of the meaning;

Yup, and that could be done with templates so all one would have to do
would say (something like)
{{new-article-outline}}
{{under-construction}}
{{not-checked}}
{{not-reviewed}}
{{approved}}
and the template would include appropriate boilerplate

As a more general point, I get the feeling that some people are
reluctant to contribute articles at the moment since they fear they will
get hacked about with too much. Some sort of documented review process
may go some way to reduce those fears.

Difficult one. That's par for the course with wikis: "If you don't want
your writing to be edited mercilessly ... don't submit it here." However
in practice that generally doesn't seem to happen: if one person starts
an article others tend to leave most changes to them, au contraire to
Wikipedia's "be bold" culture and practice, for example.

--
John Stumbles

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

In article ,
John Stumbles writes:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:51:39 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:

Could have a little standardised graphic (sort of horizontal bar graph
type thing perhaps - red when short going through to green at maximum)
that shows the level of review and checking the article has had. Each
article could simply link the appropriate graphic in the intro. Clicking
the graphic could give some explanation of the meaning;

Yup, and that could be done with templates so all one would have to do
would say (something like)
{{new-article-outline}}
{{under-construction}}
{{not-checked}}
{{not-reviewed}}
{{approved}}
and the template would include appropriate boilerplate

There is no concept of approved in a wiki, by definition.
Even supposing you could think of some way of defining an
article as approved, it can't be assumed to remain as such
unless it is locked against update. The nearest you can get
to approved is proably a wiki article with, say, at least 10
contributors, with no one contributing more than some percentage,
but even that needs refining (it's easy to engineer in a garbage
article). I think you are perhaps trying to turn the wiki into
something it can't ever be, and which our FAQ is.

As a more general point, I get the feeling that some people are
reluctant to contribute articles at the moment since they fear they will
get hacked about with too much.

Yes, that's happened to me. My time is in short supply, and
I'm not likely to waste it again. I occasionally dabble, but
if an article needs a lot of work, I now pass on it.

Some sort of documented review process
may go some way to reduce those fears.

That's what the FAQ is. We could look to move generally acceptable
articles into that, with the wiki being the more bleeding edge
workspace.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

John Stumbles wrote:

would seem offensive to do that to others') perhaps we should go the other
way and award some brownie points to articles that /are/ reasonably
complete and peer-reviewed? And as part of the QC/approval mechanism we
could then include each newly-approved article in an index of the Great
and the Good, which could be the Acceptable Face of the Wiki :-)

Thinking some more on this...

One can tell[1] allot about the provenance of an article simply by
looking at the list of names involved in its creation - just as one can
make a reasonable judgement call on the likely accuracy of info posted
to the newsgroup by the reputation of the posters.

The history capability of the wiki maintains one aspect of this very
well, but what it does not record is names of the people who have read
it, and agree or approve of the content, but have not contributed to it
directly. As an *author* I would find it valuable to know that people
with high levels of domain knowledge have read what I wrote and not
found anything to complain about.

One are on the wiki I would personally like to see changed is the
editing and account creation policy. I.e. have the default access be
read only, and editing only be allowed by those who have created an
account. That makes it much simpler to see who is changing what. It
might also curtail the spammers a bit! Perhaps it should go so far as to
have a sysop in the account creation loop. So that write access is only
granted when approved by a human.

[1] Assuming one has been reading the group for a couple of years!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/