Recommendation: Wiki

[Tony94]

Wiki. Need I say more? I will anyway. The site and topics are begging for that. Remember I said I had composed over one hour a post about disc brake maintenance? Well maybe a lesser amount of time spent on updating a wiki would be .. well of course it would be better and non-redundant and valuable. Keyword: knowledgebase. I won't go into the benefits of hosting a site wiki (because surely you as admins know all about that?). Of course this site's contents would have to be in the public domain for that to work (no one gives up IP to someone else to capitalize on. Um, no one naive anyway).

[petraman]

This post is a bit demeaning, but I'll reply to it anyways... The techinfo at the bottom of our forum has all the information that a wiki would have, but it's sorted by category and is much more organized. Also, it would be a pain to moderate such a site because people would modify the site with incorrect or unproven information, which I believe is a real fault of all wikis in general.

[willwren]

WIKI type formats do not suit our purpose. The definition of the term 'forum' relies on human interaction, discussion, and debate. WIKI is very weak in that category, which is why internet forums exist. This site is not simply a reference tool. It's a discussion board.

[Tony94]

This post is a bit demeaning,

Not intended to be.

but I'll reply to it anyways... The techinfo at the bottom of our forum has all the information that a wiki would have, but it's sorted by category and is much more organized.

But "static" in that the quality of the information doesn't improve over time (i.e., info is limited to that which a small subset of the potential contributors document).

Also, it would be a pain to moderate such a site because people would modify the site with incorrect or unproven information, which I believe is a real fault of all wikis in general.

I haven't setup a wiki yet, but I have used them and know that edits to the wiki information go through an approval process. Wikipedia is evolving/has evovled it's processes with the goal of getting the highest quality content.

WIKI type formats do not suit our purpose. The definition of the term 'forum' relies on human interaction, discussion, and debate. WIKI is very weak in that category, which is why internet forums exist. This site is not simply a reference tool. It's a discussion board.

Forums and wikis are complementary: threaded discussion, with a "low signal to noise ratio" in practice, gets distilled into highly organized and current wiki content. Knowledge management and growth and continuous improvement and the like apply.

[willwren]

Tony, we tried a wiki format for Techinfo on the old forum before we left. It was cumbersome, troublesome, and difficult to manage. We have our Techinfo set up here to allow all of our Gearheads to post, edit, and delete in that section. They do so as a team, and have a hidden section of the forum where they can discuss Techinfo articles (both existing and new) among other things.

What we have is set up for a reason, because it's easy for our Gearheads to manage the data. It's built the way it is because it works for us as a team, and that was determined by years of experience. Some members of our Staff have been doing this for the Bonneville community since 2002.

Please try to enjoy our Forum in it's current format. 99.9% of our members, if polled, would vote for no change to the current format. That's another reason it is what it is.

[Tony94]

Tony, we tried a wiki format for Techinfo on the old forum before we left. It was cumbersome, troublesome, and difficult to manage.

Your experience with existing "knowledge management" products noted. Self-administering" knowledge/interactive sites are possible (that's not to say "chaos reigns" rather than information correctness and quality), just as zero-admin databases are now common where previously database administration was much more manual. While the field of KM is evolved, the tools and implementations are in their infancy. Of course, if the required apriori knowledge isn't there, than it is not expected that the products/tools will be of any benefit (e.g., Just buying AutoCad will not make one an architect or engineer).

We have our Techinfo set up here to allow all of our Gearheads to post, edit, and delete in that section. They do so as a team, and have a hidden section of the forum where they can discuss Techinfo articles (both existing and new) among other things. What we have is set up for a reason, because it's easy for our Gearheads to manage the data. It's built the way it is because it works for us as a team, and that was determined by years of experience. Some members of our Staff have been doing this for the Bonneville community since 2002.

Are the "Gearheads" ... well what are they? So they are the same as moderators in moderated USENET groups? Yes? If so, then now I have an idea of this site: A USENET moderated newsgroup with a web interface, and with "stickies". Would that be correct? Is there more?

Please try to enjoy our Forum in it's current format. 99.9% of our members, if polled, would vote for no change to the current format. That's another reason it is what it is.

That's "interesting".

[petraman]

This seems like more of a personal agenda than to make a change for the better of the community. If it ain't broke, why fix it? This format has worked for us since 2002, and to change it would be a waste of time.

I personally think newsgroups should be phased out. Web forums were created by building upon newsgroups, changing it to be better organized and easier to archive. You don't have to have a newsreader to read posts, and having a central server to archive everything allows you to search a lot easier.

[Tony94]

This seems like more of a personal agenda than to make a change for the better of the community.

Certainly any agenda is your own. I am "experienced in the field of Knowledge Management" (self-proclaimed) and software development (and other things). If I'm making a suggestion, I assure you there is much more to the concept than ad hoc idea.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

The problem with cliches is, that they are cliches: There is no "substance" in cliche.

This format has worked for us since 2002

Who is "us"? I thought I was "us": I have a '94 Bonnie and "my ride" is a bit more than just a way to get from point A to point B.

, and to change it would be a waste of time.

Needs justification. Or did you mean that as your unqualified opinion?

I personally think newsgroups should be phased out. Web forums were created by building upon newsgroups, changing it to be better organized and easier to archive. You don't have to have a newsreader to read posts, and having a central server to archive everything allows you to search a lot easier.

Now you're in my domain. Of course in another thread I stated that I think web interfaces suck. But, alas, that is not a discussion for here. (As a "forced" user here, I can't help but note (privately) why they suck).

[BlackHawk99]

Enough.