I’ve just upgraded the WeatherWiki system to the latest version of the Wiki code and also given it a (slight) visual makeover. The main visual differences are a new logo image (thanks to…guess who…of course it could only be krelvinaz) and the new style template provided by the new version of the wiki software.
Anyone/everyone is allowed to edit the Wiki…if you’ve never tried it before have a go. This is a part of the weather-watch.com website that everyone can help to build. It’s not difficult to do…and the fun part is that you can change almost anything…including adding new pages linked to the front page.
At the moment I’m thinking that the Forum is a place for discussions and questions to be asked/answered. I think the Wiki might have a place as a more permanent place to hold WD/WDL/MML and other weather reference data…perhaps in time taking over from the FAQ topics in the Forum. I’ll reserve final judgement until I see whether the Wiki takes off and also what other people think the Wiki could be used for.
I like it
good work Chris
I have just added some tips and tricks and FAQ
I will keep on adding as time permits…its great, i just clicked on edit and added then saved and its done!
Wow - its been a long time since I added some test data in there 8O Good to see it coming into “production”. I’ll try and add some useful 1-wire information when I can. Of course there is always the chance that I will add some useless information too :roll: Thanks for your work on this Chris.
Looks good but how are permissions controlled? You don't want anyone being able to amend or delete someones hard work surely?
Julian
I couldn’t reply to this in the FAQ section, but the fact that everyone can amend and edit data - and that there are no permissions - is what a Wiki is all about. I guess you rely a lot on the integrity of those that use it, and trust that they will treat it with respect.
All changes are kept in a diff like format so they can be undone if not acceptable.
So if someone comes along and changes/removes what Brian put in there, the owner of the Wiki can revert those changes back so the original content is still there.
I have not used it enough to know what other levels of access there are though. Ideally, it would use the same userid’s and passwords that the forum does, but I don’t know if such a bridge exists nor if Chris has time to play with something like that.
It appears to save all the versions, check out the history tab. Doesn’t seem to need any login, at least I was logged out of the forum and could still edit the wiki.
There’s no connection between wiki and forum logins. You can register if you want, but you can also change things without registering. As has been pointed out, the wiki system maintains records of all changes that have been made. I’ve not experimented yet, but it does appear to be possible to revert to previous versions of pages.
Hints & Tips v Wiki…the thing about wiki is that if you don’t like the way something has been written you can change it. If something is incorrect, you can correct it. If you don’t like where it’s been put you can move it.
As I said earlier…lets see where the wiki goes. If it’s useful then it will grow. If it’s a waste of time it won’t grow, no-one will look at it and I can shut it down.
One problem I see with this -
The folks who put the FAQ’s together put a bit of time and effort into it.
When they are posted here, only the author can edit it.
The way I read it, in the Wiki, anyone can mess with it. A FAQ should be straight forward, and on one subject only.
The way I see it, anyone could edit a FAQ in a Wiki - even maliciously.
Also, a bunch of edits and/or editions to a FAQ might take away from the original purpose, and make the original content hard to find.
A Wiki for “Tips & Tricks” might be OK, but not for the FAQ’s in my opinion.
I’d need to check, but I think you can have protected pages where only specific people or groups can modify them, so it might be possible to have a FAQ section which the current authors can use, and rather than commenting on FAQs just make the changes. As ai understand it with a wiki anything than can be done can be undone!
I think it’s just “different”, and we should give it a try. If someone wants to put the effort into a researched and tested FAQ then (I presume) that will still be an option, but the reality is that there haven’t been many people prepared to do that, especially not for subjects that don’t concern them directly. If this encourages more sharing of knowledge then it’ll be good, even if the result is not as authoritative as the FAQ format.
That’s wikepedia which is an encyclopedia created using wiki technology. It’s an all-things-for-all-people solution which I suspect suffers because it needs all people to give input. WeatherWiki is a wiki for weather geeks to record useful weather stuff, so it’s got more limited scope.
I agree, hence my introductory comment. I think of wikipedia as using the monkeys typing shakespeare model, and it also suffers from trying to cover subjects that are prone to controversy, like Bill Gates, or even rabid activism in the case of other subjects like intelligent design.
