LandRover Wiki

[steve_a]

Been playing around over the last week with my free hosting over at infernohost and have set up to experimental Wikis if anyone want to fiddle with them.

The first is one called wikiwig at LRWiki which is OK, good editor, but lacks easy page creation compared to the wiki in work.

The second is better for the page linking, but more basic editor, it also requires more DB priviliges to work so I am running it from a file structure at the moment. It is phpwiki and is pretty open for editing if anyone wants to try it.

Having had a look it appears that there is a bridge from the Forum software to mediaWiki, the same engine as wikipedia, called ipbWiki, which would allow us to use LR4x4 accounts to edit and maintain the Wiki.

We seem to have a couple of areas that would be better as a Wiki IMHO, the tech archive and some talk in the fab forum about CAD models, it would also be good to update areas of knowledge, a modern Haynes but without the lies.

I know it is a bit new fangled, but it could be a great source of information and self sorting too.

[TheRecklessEngineer]

Damned good idea! No ideal how the technickery side would work, but i'd use it

[LandyManLuke]

It's a good idea indeed - could turn out very well.

It'd need 'moderating'/editing to keep it accurate, but yes it's a good way to present a lot of the articles that are in the tech archive.

[white90]

The Tech archive is as good as it is for he very reason there is no free for all in there

otherwise it soon goes down hill fast.

if updates are required they are added by the moderator.

First time I've read that it would be better..

It took a long time and loads of effort by the members especially Les, and I think we are lucky to have it.

just look around other sites to see the alternatives

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Been playing around over the last week with my free hosting over at infernohost and have set up to experimental Wikis if anyone want to fiddle with them.

The first is one called wikiwig at LRWiki which is OK, good editor, but lacks easy page creation compared to the wiki in work.

The second is better for the page linking, but more basic editor, it also requires more DB priviliges to work so I am running it from a file structure at the moment. It is phpwiki and is pretty open for editing if anyone wants to try it.

Having had a look it appears that there is a bridge from the Forum software to mediaWiki, the same engine as wikipedia, called ipbWiki, which would allow us to use LR4x4 accounts to edit and maintain the Wiki.

We seem to have a couple of areas that would be better as a Wiki IMHO, the tech archive and some talk in the fab forum about CAD models, it would also be good to update areas of knowledge, a modern Haynes but without the lies.

I know it is a bit new fangled, but it could be a great source of information and self sorting too.

Eh ?....I haven't the faintest idea what on earth the above means

But I struggle to see what is wrong with the Tech Forum ?...Its part of LR4x4, its simple, its free, its her, and member know and use it

Whats wrong with the Index ?

What else does it need except maybe more submission from members - which it will surely get with the popularity and support from members of this site ?

Nige

[pugwash]

The Tech archive is as good as it is for he very reason there is no free for all in there

otherwise it soon goes down hill fast.

if updates are required they are added by the moderator.

First time I've read that it would be better..

It took a long time and loads of effort by the members especially Les, and I think we are lucky to have it.

just look around other sites to see the alternatives

Spot on Mr C

[David Sparkes]

Having tried a bit of editing, or article creation if you like, on a Wiki site, I also feel that where the bulk of people are primarily Land Rover enthusiasts, then going to a Wiki will allow the 'computing' to get in the way of the Land Rover content. Which isn't good, IMHO.

The difficulty, or fear of the difficulty, in creating clear and readable articles is what stops them being written.

A 'Wiki' increases the difficulty.

For reference, I have some articles in the 38A section of www.Rangie.com

The first ones were written in plain text, the later ones were written using the 'article build' software that Matt Reeve created. This is 'OK' but it's definately another skill to learn to get a decent layout, especially when pictures are added.

My other main creation is most of the Rovacom Section of www.landywiki.co.uk

http://www.landywiki.co.uk/index.php?title=Rovacom

Again, a significant extra element of knowledge is required. This becomes less important if you are working at it every day, but for the occasional contributor, inexperienced in creating a Wiki page, it's a definate high barrier.

Edited to include that if you want the Wiki style then Andy Cunningham has actually created it. The site started out as a 38A specific site, but has evolved over the years, and it's some months ago that Andy changed the name to http://www.Landywiki.co.uk and included the basic sub headings. If people prefer that style of site, there is one waiting for contributions, and Andy is happy to accept them, but you will notice there is a lot of red font on the front page, where no-one has bothered.

Let me trade on my reputation for being the awkward sob.

Steve_a, how many Land Rover articles have you contributed? That is the prime requirement, the methodology comes second, especially if it's more complicated than plain text.

I know that comes across as a personal challenge, but actually I'm creating an opportunity for you.

You will recognise, I hope, that your argument would be stronger if you can point to work already done, and explain why changing the method of creating the article(s) would both speed and multiply your article creation.

We do have to talk about alternatives, just to keep up to date, so there's nothing wrong with suggesting something new, but not every suggestion will get adopted.

Cheers.

[FridgeFreezer]

There's nowt wrong with the tech archive, it's awesome. That doesn't make a Land Rover Wikipedia (see?) any less of a good idea - which it is.

All the FAQ's, all the tech details, the newbie questions answered... even if half the articles are links to the tech archive here so that they retain their quality.

There are all sorts of things that get asked regularly on here that could be very easily answered by having a Wikipedia style thing.

[David Sparkes]

FridgeFreezer wrote

"There are all sorts of things that get asked regularly on here that could be very easily answered by having a Wikipedia style thing."

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree.

Someone has to take on the labour intensive Editing task of pulling together the Frequently Asked Questions and the Frequently Given Replies. It's the editing that is required, and it 'could' be done in the Forum style, it's just that I doubt that anyone wants to take it on. Editors being people who are always complained about, never praised.

(Not 100% true but almost, I think).

What I'm saying is that the willingness to be an Editor comes first, Forum style or Wiki style comes later.

Let's face it, any one of us could TODAY trawl through the FAQ's that apply to our specialist interest, and create the responses, even if the responses were originally made by other people. Then we post as a new topic, or PM to the appropriate Tech Archive Moderator, who posts them up. The current Forum style doesn't inhibit the work, so I don't see how changing to Wiki style will suddenly get it done.

Cheers.

[steve_a]

Steve_a, how many Land Rover articles have you contributed? That is the prime requirement, the methodology comes second, especially if it's more complicated than plain text.

Well, a quick search shows

Microlaunch

Wet roads converter

Discovery 1 windscreen fitting ( pictures lost when I moved home )

Double cardan prop files

Discovery clutch job (pictures lost when I moved home )

The main reason to suggest it is that the wiki format allows the addition of extra information to a tech article which is not easy or sensible in the discussion thread format. How do I know that page 13 has some vital titbit on how to get the damned discovery 1 early style gearbox fittings back in the motor?

That is the difference between writing the original post and chipping in with a "did you think to" or "I found that" kind of comments.

To be honest, I hadn't found the wiki link you've posted when I did a quick search the other day, but I'm looking at it now.

Technology as a barrier is a fair comment, but you would probably find that someone would take a posting, such as Les H's, and make a page from it without too much fuss, on his behalf.

It's another reasons why I like the format of the wiki on the second one, if you create a page and mention WheelBearings then it will automatically create a link to that page, or if not found, create an edit link so you could add it, this is different than editing links etc to get new pages in, it all just kind of works.

Administration is took care of to a certain extent by tieing it into the LR4x4 accounts, your edits are tagged to you, and looking at the software it looks like you give different permissions to different users, perhaps only granting write access once a user is trusted.

I put the wikis up for anyone who wanted to have a play with, I'm not going to shout, hence why there is no security on it, it might make someone think one way or the other.

[bishbosh]

My limited experience of Wikipedia is that for historical facts etc it can be very useful but on several occasions I have been refered to Wiki during a technical "debate" to find a completely laughable "techical fact".

Our tech forum is validated by the membership and as such I believe is far more reliable. Indeed, if an error / omission is found it is quickly rectified becasue the Mods have control.

I for one will only use the tech archive and if it isn't on there I will ask someone I know and can trust to provide accurate answers. Blindly trusting info from the web is not a option for me.

My 2p.

[FridgeFreezer]

It's true the WikiPedia can be edited by anyone, but that does not have to be the case - you can effectively lock articles such that only registered contributors / moderators etc. can post. The great unwashed can, I think, submit things for approval, but with that safeguard in place you can stop inaccuracies creeping in.

If you had a group of people who maintained the Wiki it would be relatively easy to ensure quality - for example, if someone posted a particularly useful reply to something an "editor" could cut-n-paste it into it's own page on the Wiki with only minor tweaks to ensure it scanned properly away from the forum.

Instead of seeing this as a rival to the tech archive, consider it an easier to maintain / easier to use version of the tech archive. After all, if Wikipedia itself was just an indexed list it probably wouldn't be anywhere near as handy as it is.

[BogMonster]

The Tech archive is as good as it is for he very reason there is no free for all in there

otherwise it soon goes down hill fast.

if updates are required they are added by the moderator.

First time I've read that it would be better..

It took a long time and loads of effort by the members especially Les, and I think we are lucky to have it.

just look around other sites to see the alternatives

Amen to that, says it all.

[Ryan]

If you're going to have one all singing and dancing repository for all things Land Rover, it must have the words "Don't Panic" in big friendly letters at the front

Ryan (mostly harmless)

[Gromit]

The Tech archive is as good as it is for he very reason there is no free for all in there

otherwise it soon goes down hill fast.

if updates are required they are added by the moderator.

First time I've read that it would be better..

It took a long time and loads of effort by the members especially Les, and I think we are lucky to have it.

just look around other sites to see the alternatives

The tech archive is invaluable. I think one problem with though, it that it can only be added to by the mods.

I've done a few writeups that have never make it to the tech archives. They might not be the most complicated jobs, but I put them up so that other could learn from my mistakes and contribute their own tips.

If we had some sort of Wiki-type submission system that could be approved by a mod, then I think that'd be an improvement, allowing more people to contribute to the archive.

[bishbosh]

I think one problem with though, it that it can only be added to by the mods.

This is the tech archive's greatest strength! It keeps the quality and accuracy of the information in there up.

If you have some write ups that you think are worthy of the tech archive then drop Tony a PM and ask him to consider them for inclusion.

[Happyoldgit]

I think it would have been nice if the mods could have chance to discuss the ins and outs of the idea before it was launched on here.

[BogMonster]

The tech archive is invaluable. I think one problem with though, it that it can only be added to by the mods.

I've done a few writeups that have never make it to the tech archives. They might not be the most complicated jobs, but I put them up so that other could learn from my mistakes and contribute their own tips.

If anybody thinks something is worthy of the tech archive then please shout. I may be speaking out of turn here but personally I would say that the only circumstances under which such a request would be declined would be if the moderators felt that the post in question was recommending something that was either wrong or dangerous.

[white90]

I have added regularly to the tech archive solely from prompts by members

if anyone sees things worth inclusion anywhere even off board

I'll contact the owner and ask for permission to use

as has been done from various sites(Pirate/Outerlimits/Blippies site amongst others)

[David Sparkes]

I think it would have been nice if the mods could have chance to discuss the ins and outs of the idea before it was launched on here.

I agree, the same thought has crossed my mind.

You have shown yourselves to be open to new ideas (CAD library) but whatever is suggested, in the end some 'bodies' have to run it, day in, day out, and it depends very much on what those 'bodies' feel comfortable with.

Hopefully we have learnt for the next time, so that even if the next new idea is proposed in the open forum before the Mods have had a chance to consider the implications, we can delay public consultation until you have had that chance.

Cheers.

[steve_a]

I did wonder about just asking a mod/the mods about the idea, however I thought what harm can it do? I can see the pros and cons of remaining as it and also trying a new way. Also it is only likely to be of any use if the general consensus was to get behind it and think it worth their time.

To be fair, until recently I was/am pretty sceptical about wikis, and I don't think I would endorse the idea of a completely open, anyone can do stuff wiki. I imagined that only those members that were deemed 'responsible' would have write access, certainly to any major areas.

There seems to be a feeling that I've said the tech archive is no good, this is NOT the case, I just thought it could be better with less effort for the moderators by switching to another format in the longer term. (In fact it is so good I refer others to it a lot of the time and am browsing the cambelt thread as I write, mainly coz mine snapped on the way home ).

I was unaware that articles should be proposed for the tech archive, I think I have done so once, and even then felt guilty for taking up someones time, I generally assume that if the mods deem a thread worthy it will go in, otherwise it will be omitted.

If I have upset anyone by asking the question/proposing the creation of an LR4x4 Wiki then I apologise, that was certainly never my intention. I just thought that there was little point in this being a question that was asked only of the moderators since the thought was that it was something the whole forum would be contributing too, without the support of which it would be useless as it would increase the workload of the mods rather than decrease it.

[FridgeFreezer]

If nothing else can we create a Bill-Van-Snorkle-Wiki?

[LR90]

Steve, the suggestion is good and welcome

We've used wiki's at work on a number of projects, some it goes well others not so. They do tend to require more input than a forum QA and our more successful ones rely on the person getting the answer making the entry, sort of quid pro quo, though if the ipbWiki uses the same formatting as the forum there should be less of a barrier.

The goal of a wiki is different too. In our context it might be best to think of it as collectively building the ultimate online reference book (it is like a book) on Land Rovers. This is rather different to the current forum format where the tech archive is a valuable by product of our helping each other and a goal in itself.

Wiki's also do better if they are structured, again like the book. Without this you can be forever chasing unreferenced pages which serve no value or the random structure can be confusing and difficult to navigate.

The quality of information has been a challenge on many wikis too. It is not unknown for misinformation to be injected or for pages to be hijacked for financial benefit (who's writing the page on rust prevention for example?). Information in our tech archive has been carefully reviewed by the members before inclusion. A forum wiki would need such a review mechanism and not just moderation by a few.

So, do we want to build an online land rover reference book? It could have sections on history of the models, servicing and repairs, technical data, modifications,... or are we just repeating much of what is already available in the LR service and parts books?