On 1/6/2017 8:43 AM, wes wrote: > 1. being wrong is ok. when you find information that doesn't work for you, > but don't have something better to replace it with, you can place a note > near it. something like (note: this doesn't work in montana during a full > moon). hopefully others will see it and either add to it or correct it. but > if they don't know to look, they are less likely to.
I hadn't thought of that approach. Although now that you mention it I've seen it done on a wiki that I've not visited recently. It has the advantage that only people looking for that information will see it. > > 2. I think if you stipulate that what you're doing is for a very specific > application, perhaps even in the page title itself, it will be more likely > to help others with similar goals, and less likely to be clobbered by the > mainstream users. That last phrase may be optimistic. > In the worst case, your page gets deleted and you will > have at least tried. Total deletion would not be the concern. My concern would be those making piecemeal changes who don't pay attention to the overall context/intent. I'd have to do a careful proofreading anytime I went into edit after receiving coherent germane comments. > Then, if this becomes the recurring pattern in > practice, the next logical step may be to set up your own wiki. > > -wes > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Richard Owlett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have asked many questions (some odd;) and have received much >> useful feedback. >> Some have suggested creating or adding to wiki pages. >> For two reasons I hesitate to create/edit a page on an >> established wiki (e.g. wiki.debian.org): >> >> 1. The strong possibility I could have my facts wrong. There have >> been cases where I could demonstrate current wiki content was >> wrong and have been chided for not changing it myself - it being >> a wiki after all. I did not know the correct information &/or >> could not see replacing known bad with something with other >> unknown errors. >> >> 2. As to creating new content, I have atypical perspectives. >> During the development of content I would need feed back but a >> traditional established wiki is open for modification by the >> general public. Almost by definition they would edit to conform >> to that divergent view. >> >> I do not have the resources nor expertise to create or administer >> such a site. >> Characteristics of such a site (roughly in order of importance): >> 1. ONLY the author of a page has write access to the page content. >> 2. there be some means for publicly readable comments on the >> content. >> 3. the content should probably be open indexing by search engines. >> 4. if possible it should be flagged to not be archived by sites >> such as >> http://archive.org as one of the goals is to limit the >> perpetuation of >> erroneous "facts". >> >> Comments/suggestions? >> TIA >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PLUG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug >> > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
