Reviews here, reviews elsewhere...

[judicata]

I'm not so sure you're agreeing. John is pushing for signed contributions. That's one form of ownership you won't find in a wiki, as they were originally conceived. Similarly, saying people shouldn't mess with the contributions that are already in place gives authors a kind of ownership. Ownership is just somewhat different from saying "look at me, me, me".

I don't think I agreed or disagreed. I was saying that a site that employs those things you describe (signed contributions, limited editorial control, ownership over contributions) is simply not a wiki. It is something else--for better or worse.

[Bill Spight]

In the SL context, restraint of course means not messing with other people's contributions and not posting just for the sake of saying "look at me, me, me".

....This is extremely important: if a potential contributor wants ownership over his or her contributions, they simply should not use a wiki.

I'm not so sure you're agreeing. John is pushing for signed contributions. That's one form of ownership you won't find in a wiki, as they were originally conceived. Similarly, saying people shouldn't mess with the contributions that are already in place gives authors a kind of ownership. Ownership is just somewhat different from saying "look at me, me, me".

First, SL started out with signed contributions, FWIW. Maybe SL has never been a wiki, I don't know.

Second, as a reader, I agree with John. Reputation matters. If something on SL is not signed, I do not trust it. I also think that unsigned material sounds authoritative: This is how it is. Maybe readers are not misled, but I suspect that many are. Compare SL with, say, a wiki about a programming language. I expect that most of the editors of the programming language wiki are expert programmers in the language. But no pros contribute to SL. If they did, the reputation of unsigned material on SL would go up, IMO.

Third, as for messing with others' contributions, the way that was done in the beginning of SL was through Wiki Master Edits, which were community affairs. Nobody's material was protected, even though it was signed. After the WME, all contributors' names were affixed at the bottom. Perhaps that was not how a Wiki should work in theory, but that's how it worked on SL at the time. And, IMO, it worked pretty well.

Fourth, I think that people want SL to be a reference on go, at least in part. Good reference requires citations and, because of the relative lack of English material on go, particularly high level material, SL becomes the end point for a lot of users. And, because no pros contribute to SL, IMO it is not good enough to rely upon the reputation of SL. But if something on SL is signed by John Fairbairn or by Robert Jasiek, I can rely upon their reputations.

Fifth, although Wikipedia has a rule, I believe, against posting personal research, to have such a rule at SL would be counterproductive. (Does not having that rule make SL less of a Wiki? So be it.) I was originally invited to contribute to SL because of one of my endgame problems that still has a page there. And a great deal of SL is the result of original research. unkx80 has contributed many wonderful problems, for instance. He does not sign his problems. I do sign my original research on SL. Do I want to take credit for it? Sure, why not? But the main value of signing it, IMO, has to do with reputation. People can judge its worth in part by who wrote it. That may affect whether they even bother to read it. People can also find it by searching for my name.

Sixth, I disagree with John Fairbairn about handles. I have been online since 1983 and have used a number of handles. Handles acquire reputations, as well as names. For instance, unkx80 has an excellent reputation. I use my real name here and on SL because I already had a reputation in the go world beforehand.

[judicata]

Bill, thanks for the background on how SL began (I mean that sincerely - forums don't allow for tone of voice, and I don't want to be misinterpreted).

When I say that certain things aren't characteristic of a wiki, I'm not saying that SL should be Wikipedia (something SL expressly disclaims). And perhaps I overstated some points--the definition of "wiki" is fluid, and wikis are, in large part, whatever the community determines them to be. But the problem with signed contributions (admitting that I might misunderstand what people have in mind), while adding credibility, is that people become attached to their work, and others are hesitant to edit it.

I think, although original research is basically indispensable if SL is to have any content, substantive issues should be worked out in talk/discussion pages/subpages/forums/etc., (although such discussions will be reflected in edits to an article, issues should not be literally discussed there). I'm not saying that an entry shouldn't exist until all issues are worked out--would we even be able to post a page on "atari"?--but that articles should be viewed as community works in progress.

Also, maybe I don't understand what everyone means by "signed contributions." I think it would be consistent with a wiki in principle to include footnotes with sources of the information--including if the source is the original editor (e.g. "Information about ____ was provided by Bill Spight"), and perhaps link to any discussion that exists on the topic. But I do not think a single person should be responsible for an article, paragraph, or sentence.


And while the contours of what is a "wiki" are fluid, a wiki's essence is still open contributions with no ownership. Rather than "a wiki is only as strong as its strongest contributor," it is "a wiki is only as strong as its community."

I want to reiterate that I'm not saying SL should or should not be a wiki (or is or is not a wiki). But if you take a wiki-based platform (open editing, community contributions) and try to shoe-horn in controlled content and limited contributions, you will end up with more frustrations than either adopting or rejecting the wiki concept wholesale.


Aside: It is funny, because I would bet good money that 90% of SL's traffic is from the most basic pages like common definitions and concepts, and those pages convey the information the reader seeks. A majority of the time there is a dispute (obviously not all the time), people get bent out of shape about some minor point that most people don't find essential to an article.

No matter the system, if there is community involvement there will be disputes and most contributors of substantive content will get upset about a contribution at some point. It is just the nature of such projects.

[RobertJasiek]

The internet is not just a place to gain reputation but there I also learned to improve my skills for researching and teaching. So I don't really understand why quite some people are that afraid of showing real names. Surely there is data collection abuse but I am not afraid of Google knowing when I am online or what I have written. Write things you can be proud of and you will impress the data collectors rather than offer them sources of harm. If you write valuable things, then you will impress people and they know it is you and not just some pseudonym. Are you afraid of being a beginner with a real name? You can still impress everybody by posing cute questions! Surprise everybody of learning from the answers! I see only one regular reason to hide oneself in Go communities: A child might need protection against its own inexperience meeting the world's dangers.

[Bill Spight]

But the problem with signed contributions (admitting that I might misunderstand what people have in mind), while adding credibility, is that people become attached to their work, and others are hesitant to edit it.

{snip}

But I do not think a single person should be responsible for an article, paragraph, or sentence.

{snip}

I want to reiterate that I'm not saying SL should or should not be a wiki (or is or is not a wiki). But if you take a wiki-based platform (open editing, community contributions) and try to shoe-horn in controlled content and limited contributions, you will end up with more frustrations than either adopting or rejecting the wiki concept wholesale.

As for how wikified SL is, that question has been discussed at quite some length on SL. I have been online since 1983 and have seen a variety of bulletin boards, forums, etc. All have pluses and minuses.

IMX, the original concept of SL, with signed contributions and WMEs, has proved quite workable, even if you may think of it as some kind of hybridization of the Wiki concept.

Let me be redundant and give an example I mentioned on another thread:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYearKo

Note that nothing is individually signed on the main page, but authors and editors are credited at the bottom.

Now, here is a subpage:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYear ... htingTheKo

It bears my signature. I wrote the whole page, not just a paragraph. It is based on my own research, and I stand by it. To the best of my knowledge, nothing comparable about fighting a 10,000 year ko exists elsewhere in English.

Do you want to eliminate it from SL because it is not Wiki enough?

[tapir]

We may want to differentiate signed contributions (as in SL) with signed contributions (as in L19x19)

In SL they are respected when the page is an essay, an opinion piece, a review, a personal research presented as such etc. or may end up overhauled in a WME to a unified text in a page on a particular move by Yi Se-tol or a dispute on what a specific go term means. In L19x19 the signature is technically enforced (you have to login to write anything at all) and usually the contribution is never altered if not admins sense something bad in it. Both systems have their merits, but obviously an enforced signature system, with no later altering of content will not bring about a unified presentation but a discussion thread. The only case were strictly attributed content, without later altering results in unified presentation is by assigning tasks to single editors as common in printed encyclopedias. Remember they offer a strong incentive by payment and reputation in your academic field. This, however, would not be a wiki at all, whose strength is in collaboration, this obviously allows for single authored pages, but often enough other contributors have additional insights to offer. Also remember, SL is not limited to presenting knowledge, there is room for much beyond that (wishlists, ongoing games, announcing your local tournament, news etc. etc.)

I recognize that there must have been bad blood about the removal of signatures on WME'ed pages, sth. Dieter afair considered as library work and I took up from him, where it was a really long list of contributors so it didn't really felt like a meaningful attribution of content to editors anymore (with one or two contributors, at least I usually kept the names). Not doing much on the page, but removing the names seems not to be the best library work to do looking back now, it hurt feelings but had no inherent value in itself. But I never got the impression there was a policy on this, just a lack of debate and different individual approaches to that matter. (Again, I am present at SL only since 2007.)

What I have in mind since a while is a set of "Best Practice XY" pages, which set an example on what to remember when writing a page on a certain topic, again, this is not technically enforced, but a standard to measure your contribution on. It has the special merit that it doesn't need a software change. A try to start these didn't show much feedback, so I stopped. (http://senseis.xmp.net/?BestPracticeJoseki)

Thanks to all to turn this thread into a useful discussion after all, especially judicata for injecting some helpful distinctions.

Search: Full text search turns into a powerful tool if you exercise it with all the add-ons offered by the AdvancedFindPage, limiting to keywords, including page difficulties etc. etc.

RecentChanges: You can customize RecentChanges to not show certain keywords/page types, e.g. excluding Homepages, Humour and Online Go pages from your personal Recent Changes is easy. Explanation here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?UserPreferences ... entChanges

Go Seigen: The edit mentioned by John on the upcoming book, may well be by someone he knows very well, who is related to the publisher of the book. (The IP edited only Slate & Shell related pages so far.)

[John Fairbairn]

This was just posted in the British Go Association gotalk forum and seems worth a mention here.

QUOTE
As a further service to the Go world we have now started providing a number of Book Reviews online as part of our website. They are available as the Books and Software Reviews link (http://www.britgo.org/bookreviews.html) in the Books and Sets section.

These will typically be copies of reviews that have been previously published in the British Go Journal (BGJ), but have now been brought together in one easy accessible place.

Initially we have started with 9 recent ones, but it is our intention that older ones and any reviews of software or services that are produced will be added to these when available.

We solicit reviews of books, software etc. from anyone, but reserve the right to reject and/or edit them as necessary to conform to our website guidelines. Typically we will wish to publish them in the BGJ first, so in the first instance please contact the BGJ Editor.
UNQUOTE

[judicata]

Do you want to eliminate it from SL because it is not Wiki enough?

No. I'm not sure what I said that would make you think that--I've said in each of my posts that I'm not trying to say what SL should or should not be (at least I think I said that).

As I said in my last post, I am a little unsure what people have in mind when they refer to "signed contributions." When that is said, I envision a page with several separate comments, with a signature, of each person's take on the subject instead of a collaborative article.

Also, as mentioned in my last post, I think it makes sense to cite individuals as sources of information in footnotes, since (as has been mentioned here) sources will rarely be available otherwise.

[Bill Spight]

Do you want to eliminate it from SL because it is not Wiki enough?

No. I'm not sure what I said that would make you think that--I've said in each of my posts that I'm not trying to say what SL should or should not be (at least I think I said that).

This is what I was responding to:

But I do not think a single person should be responsible for an article, paragraph, or sentence.

I was also responding to this:

But if you take a wiki-based platform (open editing, community contributions) and try to shoe-horn in controlled content and limited contributions, you will end up with more frustrations than either adopting or rejecting the wiki concept wholesale.

It seems to me that SL, as originally conceived and practiced, does just that, with control and limitation through signatures. And, IMX, that is quite workable.

[judicata]

This is what I was responding to:

But I do not think a single person should be responsible for an article, paragraph, or sentence.

Ahh, okay. I should clarify, I think. Of course anyone can set up a website however they want. But in community-based projects to have someone bearing sole ownership over an article or section of an article, stifles contribution. And by sole ownership, I mean someone drafts an article or paragraph, and after that any edits must be made by that person. If the goal is to have a place for several individual projects, rather than one community project, that's fine.

That isn't to say there shouldn't be people who "adopt" or maintain articles or pages--to the contrary, it is very important. That also isn't to say people should make contributions on a whim without thought or discussion--that is what discussion pages/sections are for.

[mohsart]

This was just posted in the British Go Association gotalk forum and seems worth a mention here.

http://www.britgo.org/bookreviews.html

This is very good, but unusable for me as a book seller. Which includes my customers.
Another site that cannot be reached simply, eg by (easilly implemented) the publishers code or at least the title (may cause problems, eg sometimes "the" is omitted and sometimes not).
Instead of a link "here you'll find a review" I'd have to write "go to this site and search for the book".
3-4 clicks away may seem like nonsense, but it actually turns people off.

/Mats

[kirkmc]

This was just posted in the British Go Association gotalk forum and seems worth a mention here.

http://www.britgo.org/bookreviews.html

This is very good, but unusable for me as a book seller. Which includes my customers.
Another site that cannot be reached simply, eg by (easilly implemented) the publishers code or at least the title (may cause problems, eg sometimes "the" is omitted and sometimes not).
Instead of a link "here you'll find a review" I'd have to write "go to this site and search for the book".
3-4 clicks away may seem like nonsense, but it actually turns people off.

/Mats

Seriously? It's too much trouble for you to copy the links and put them on your website on the pages for the books you sell?

[mohsart]

Seriously? It's too much trouble for you to copy the links and put them on your website on the pages for the books you sell?

There are about 300 books in stock, about 10 places that gets reviews posted on.
If I can add code like Review on xxx is found here [code including stuff already in the database], like I have for 4-5 sources already...
Of course I could do the work, but it's not worth it.

/Mats

[mohsart]

I have for example the following code on my site
{if $product->manufacturer_name == 'Yutopian'}
<p>
<a href="https://www.yutopian.com/yutop/cat?product=PA{$product->supplier_reference|upper}&category=PAY" target="_blank">Yutopian{l s='\'s info on the book'}</a>
</p>
{/if}
Which provides a link to the Yutopian book on yutopian.com
Of course I could have copied and pasted the information but then it would have been stationary, and would have had to be redone to be current.

/Mats
Edit: and this was made ONCE, for all Yutopian books

[Bill Spight]

But in community-based projects to have someone bearing sole ownership over an article or section of an article, stifles contribution.

Not in my experience, and I have been online and involved with online communities for a long time.

And in this specific instance, if I had not "owned" by signature that subpage, I doubt if I would have bothered to post it. Humans and communities are complicated.