How would you organize the Wiki

[Admin]

There are different possible ways of organizing the Wiki.

For example, one approach might be sections for

How To
History
People
Schematics and Manuals



A different approach would be sections for

Electronic Organs
Pipe Organs
Organists
Organ Music
Recordings


What are some of the top level sections that you would like to see in the Wiki?

[ShadyJoe]

I wouldn't worry about the sections until I have some content. Once you get to a certain level you need to see what you have and where you think it's going, as well as understand what is being used.

Thanks. I'm sure as far as Hammond organs are concerned there will be lot of interest in creating, reading, and sharing How-To articles. This info is already in the forums but will be better served in a Wiki page.

[jdoc]

are both possible, both concept have merit?

[torea]

Great idea on the Wiki! I'm really looking forward to it!

The format also depends on the purpose of the Wiki. Is it general compilation of knowledge? Or more focused towards helping new people and/or people looking for very specific things? I created a reference guide for a different forum, organized by the simplest and most basic things first (so the new people could easily get started) then the more complex stuff so the pro guys had some use in it. Luckily, the forum allows stickies to be edited by their creator, so I can go in and change stuff when people tell me something needs to be changed. The Wiki would make that much easier, but I think it needs a direction.



are both possible, both concept have merit?


What about laying it out like the Forum is now (Forum, sub Forum, etc) and when it gets to the bottom, you could have some micro level history and how-to etc etc. Then maybe a macro level section for general organ stuff?

[Hamman]

Does this mean we can "split" the Hammond section into 2 categories? 1 Consoles and the other Spinets???
Just Kidding!:devil:

Hey its Friday and I'm in a good mood!
It all sounds great to me!

[gtc]

Whatever schema is adopted, I would say a How To section would be imperative. Many, perhaps most, of the repetitive posts on here are in that category. The How To section itself may be split into General and then brands.

[myorgan]

Should it mirror the Organ Forum setup w/subsections? I believe Winkipedia calls those "disambiguation" pages. That may be easier. Granted, it's 2 or 3 clicks instead of only one, but probably worth it in the long run.

Michael

[gtc]

Should it mirror the Organ Forum setup w/subsections? I believe Winkipedia calls those "disambiguation" pages. That may be easier. Granted, it's 2 or 3 clicks instead of only one, but probably worth it in the long run.


Disambiguation pages are a very good idea.

[myorgan]

May I also suggest that only established members of this Forum with a certain number of posts, or reputation, or some other trigger; be allowed to edit content? Just another thought.

Michael

[gtc]

Agree that authorship of the Wiki should be controlled via some criteria.

There is already a lot of gold buried within the threads of various forums, and a good trawl of them could extract sufficient material to kick-start the Wiki. Such a trawl, of course, would take some considerable time and effort.

[Admin]

The Wiki software provides a great degree of control over the contributions. I like to encourage people to be involved, so my initial thought is not to institute a system that limits contributions to contributors that a meet a certain criteria of seniority, reputation, or authority. One of the strengths of the wiki is that the community as a whole, through its collective input, determines what is appropriate, informative, accurate and useful.

Initially, then, the plan is for all contributions and edits to be moderated and approved before being published. As with the forum, contributors and editors who have demonstrated their knowlege and good judgement will be freed of the burden of moderation and be granted more priviliges and authority.

[gtc]

Initially, then, the plan is for all contributions and edits to be moderated and approved before being published. As with the forum, contributors and editors who have demonstrated their knowlege and good judgement will be freed of the burden of moderation and be granted more priviliges and authority.

That's a good plan, however I believe that in order to be a useful resource the wiki should be authoritative. If it is to contain unchecked articles that are factually incorrect, then its worth is seriously compromised.

(and spelling should be correct[ed], too.)

PS: ... another thought on contributions: Perhaps there could be an icon similar to the report icon whereby members can flag a post as a potentially suitable contribution to the Wiki.

[myorgan]

PS: ... another thought on contributions: Perhaps there could be an icon similar to the report icon whereby members can flag a post as a potentially suitable contribution to the Wiki.

Great idea!!!

[Admin]

another thought on contributions: Perhaps there could be an icon similar to the report icon whereby members can flag a post as a potentially suitable contribution to the Wiki.

Good idea, but would require a degree of software customization. There's no reason that the existing functionality of report icon be limited to reporting transgressions, though. It's just a notification to moderators, so feel free to use it to flag potential Wiki material.

Better yet, take the initiative and extract the information from the post and create an article in the Wiki yourself.

[Havoc]

Well if the Admin has felt a need for a wiki, then he must have at least an idea of what he would put in it? Why not work from that as a base?

While I see the point of moderating, doesn't it kind of goes against the grain of a wiki if you do it at such length as proposed? Might also become a time consuming task.

[Admin]

While I see the point of moderating, doesn't it kind of goes against the grain of a wiki if you do it at such length as proposed? Might also become a time consuming task.

Exactly so. The moderation is just to weed out spammers and other troublemakers. Once someone is trusted, their wiki activity will be free of active moderation and the community will be responsible for monitoring the usefulness and integrity of the content. That's the concept of Wiki's

[Frontier Fabricators]

Good day :)

I would probably organize priorities by organ type, manufacturer, model #, then alphabetical similar to the way one would search for specifics for their automobile. The Wiki idea is a good one, and once users know how to use it they can to go to their specific topic of interest without having to sift through mass archives of information.

Just my thoughts...

Ron

[gtc]

Good idea, but would require a degree of software customization. There's no reason that the existing functionality of report icon be limited to reporting transgressions, though. It's just a notification to moderators, so feel free to use it to flag potential Wiki material.

Better yet, take the initiative and extract the information from the post and create an article in the Wiki yourself.

I'm loathe to re-post another person's (author's) work. I'd prefer that they did that themselves, perhaps with a little promoting, or that they give general permission for it to be done by another member.

[Admin]

I'm loathe to re-post another person's (author's) work. I'd prefer that they did that themselves, perhaps with a little promoting, or that they give general permission for it to be done by another member.

While I agree, there's nothing wrong with creating a Wiki article that links to a post containing the information. Copying another's work is not a necessity, although I see nothing wrong doing that with material already posted on this site provided that the source and author of the work is credited in the article. See also how articles are footnoted in Wikipedia.