You are a Guest, please Join now to allow full access to the website and be part of our community. You can register by clicking the "Click Here to create an account" link at the top left of the page under our Logo
surely if we use that system it will detract from the type of forum that we are now that adds humour and personal touches that make it so appealing.
Hi Cabby
The wiki would be an addition to the site, rather than a replacement. The idea is that answers to certain questions (e.g. gassing , A-frames ) would be written there, the theory being that 'stock' information would be easier to locate there, rather than search for or browse through the posts on the forum.
My issue is that a lot of the advice on here is based on personal experience or preference, and by no means is there one definitive answer to a lot of questions. As we know, motorhoming is one huge compromise in just about every area, and it's how we weigh up those compromises that helps us make decisions. Put that into a wiki, and you get a stock question (e.g. should I buy solar panels?) with many, many different points of view. Which is the right one? Is there a right one? And, being a wiki (that everyone can contribute to), you could end up with pages of different ideas and opinions, repeating much of what is on the forum.
If you look at Wikipedia, much of that information is fixed (who ruled which country, what elements are in which chemical compound, etc etc), and you may have people adding to the entry with extra information, the basic encyclopaedia-type information never changes.
It would be interesting to hear from experienced wiki setter-uppers
Gerald
The following members of MHF thanked geraldandannie for this posting
A reference source is not an executive decision maker, but merely supports the decision making process by enabling the reader to be more informed.
I envisage a motorhome Wiki being no different.
By presenting the key information in a compact form, it should improve on the mysterious and frequent situation where posters acknowledge having read and searched the forums on a topic, before proving either that they haven't, or that they absorbed nothing by so doing, or, the more charitable interpretation I prefer, the low wheat-to-chaff ratio lost them the will to live.
Dave
The following members of MHF thanked DABurleigh for this posting
We are now using wikis quite extensively where I work (science research organisation). As described above, it is like a web site that anyone can edit. All edits are logged and can be 'undone'. Some pages can be restricted to certain groups.
On our project wikis anyone can make 'live' changes and everyone can see who has added/changed what and when.
On our intranet pages which are wiki-style and hold more admin- or business-related info, anyone can add/edit but the changes have to be approved by a reviewer who then makes them visible to everyone else. You need that to maintain some quality control for the important stuff in a big organisation.
What I find useful is that to add something to a page, you can either go in and edit the text of the page OR you can simply add a comment which appears next to your name at the foot of the page, like in a forum topic. Thus MHF could, for example, have a wiki page stating the known facts and myths about gas attacks, with links including if you wish, links to relevant forum topics. Below this individual members can add their thoughts.
A reference source is not an executive decision maker, but merely supports the decision making process by enabling the reader to be more informed.
I envisage a motorhome Wiki being no different.
By presenting the key information in a compact form, it should improve on the mysterious and frequent situation where posters acknowledge having read and searched the forums on a topic, before proving either that they haven't, or that they absorbed nothing by so doing, or, the more charitable interpretation I prefer, the low wheat-to-chaff ratio lost them the will to live.
Dave
So wouldn't an FAQ section do the same thing?
The following members of MHF thanked cronkle for this posting
A FAQ is the lowest common denominator form of a Wiki.
Despite what Gerald and Frank hve rightly said about structure, from a user point of view a wiki is as powerful and flexible as it is because of its hyperlinks, which a FAQ doesn't have.
Dave
The following members of MHF thanked DABurleigh for this posting
The other key advantage of a Wiki is that once it is established with empty structure and controls thought through, it is built naturally and in bite-sized chunks by a diverse community. With FAQs, however, which MHF has tried, this failed because you are dependent on a few individuals to volunteer to do all the work.
Dave
The following members of MHF thanked DABurleigh for this posting
My issue is that a lot of the advice on here is based on personal experience or preference, and by no means is there one definitive answer to a lot of questions. As we know, motorhoming is one huge compromise in just about every area, and it's how we weigh up those compromises that helps us make decisions. Put that into a wiki, and you get a stock question (e.g. should I buy solar panels?) with many, many different points of view. Which is the right one? Is there a right one? And, being a wiki (that everyone can contribute to), you could end up with pages of different ideas and opinions, repeating much of what is on the forum.
.....
Gerald
Its precisely for that reason that the approach to using wiki's needs to be carefully introduced and structured.
One way might be to commission a few paragraphs on each of the range of subjects which might constitute the core of the wiki.
These would be written in an even handed way and where absolute facts are scarce should mention the alternate view. So for example a wiki on 'gassing' would use the words 'considered unlikely' rather than say it doesn't happen. Give a link to the evidence against and for. This sets the tone for other contributors.
Its my understanding that a wiki can be amended by anybody. Is there any way that at least the introduction could have restricted access for editing?
______________________________________________________________ Regards Frank
Get behind early - it gives you more time to catch up.
Denn wir haben nichts in die Welt gebracht; darum offenbar ist, wir werden auch nichts hinausbringen.
Plusnet, Safari 3.2, G5 PowerPC iMac running OSX 10.4.11, Eee 4GB running Linux EeePC 1.02.15 and an Eee900 running Linux EeePC 1.1.0.66, Salisbury UK
The following members of MHF thanked sallytrafic for this posting
Bookmarks
Watched Topics
, A-frames 
