I don't think of FamilySearch as a Wiki either (more like a series of databases), but they do have a Wiki - https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Main_Page On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Lancaster via < gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Dear Peter and James. > > You raise some points about definitions and logic! :) > > I have mainly been explaining how a wiki is a type of software which can > be used in more ways than the most well-known ways. That was the most > relevant point about wikis, given the question was raised about how to > do an online collaboration with more of a quality focus than most > large-scale collaborations online. An example of a quality focused > project already existing is the Henry project, but it is not currently a > wiki. It seemed relevant to me to point to the question of software, > because I know wiki software is not always considered for such purposes. > Indeed I know that software itself is not often considered as a factor > that might make it easier. I also had in mind past discussions about > what has been difficult etc in examples such as the Henry project. > > I disagree with James that familysearch is a wiki. I think that is a > confusing and unconventional way to use the word, but of course you are > free to try this usage out and see if it sticks. If wiki means any group > of people working together on the internet then it includes 3 people > making a google spreadsheet together. I personally think if the wiki > software is not involved, it is not a wiki. And I think I am right to > say that this is the convention followed by most people. > > > It is true the word can also be used to refer to one wiki, and by > extension the people working together on one wiki site, using wiki > software, the “community”. > > Obviously any community should ideally have some sort of shared aim, but > I am also not sure I agree with James’ words “essentially a wiki since > it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute”. > If this means a wiki is any joint effort (and that the shared truth is > just whatever the texts in the wiki end up saying) then I find this to > be a similar mistake to saying familysearch is a wiki. (Definition too > broad). Why use the word that way? If it means that people in a wiki all > agree with each other, well then I think such things do not exist. > (Definition too narrow.) I think neither definition is pointing at what > is distinctive and recognizable in a wiki. It is not just any online > collaboration. It is not a form of collaboration where there is a lot of > unanimity. It does not have to be large scale collaboration. Again I > think it is much more meaningful to say that the defining characteristic > of wikis is the software platform, however it us used. There can be 2 > people active on a wiki, or 2 million. The English language has other > terms for other kinds of online editing. > > I also disagree with Peter that there is a logical error in saying that > a wiki can chose its editors. The point being made was indeed that the > procedure or policy concerning allowing new editors can be set in > different ways, so I am confident everyone understood me, but there was > also nothing wrong with the wording. Perhaps I am not the one who needs > to think about this more. I have a clear vision of how wikis really work. > :) > > > At first the policy of who can edit can be set by founders, for example. > The founders might never actually edit. They might set a constitution > instead of making individual decisions. Later it might be decided by a > bigger group of people who also may or may not be editors. Or indeed > anyone may be allowed to join, like in Wikipedia, but then there may be > rules about limited rights and more oversight for a period. But one > thing for sure: when new editors are being chosen they will not be > existing editors, and therefore there was no logical problem with saying > that a wiki (wiki community) can chose editors (new editors) how it > wants. The “wiki” of today can chose its editors of tomorrow and the two > groups of people do not ever overlap at that moment of choice. :) > > > Concerning chickens and eggs, I came into a pre-existing discussion > where a project was already proposed concerning manor histories. During > discussion I suggested that for example a project like the Henry project > could be moved to wiki software also. It would not change the quality of > that project. :) So there seem to be lots of chickens and eggs around. A > wiki is just a software platform, a tool. You can use it, or you can > find another one. I suggest not thinking too much about specific wikis > we do not like for specific reasons. > > James, concerning the pre-1500 certification on wikitree (it is not on > wikipedia) there is also a pre-1700 level. Both involve answering some > questions about things like how to name a source properly and so on, and > then having someone approve you. While fairly nominal, this has had a > big impact on the pre-1500 editing quality. It will not be obvious yet, > because this policy is only a few months old. Probably much more > important was the decision to stop the possibility of editing en masse > using large gedcom files. Now, in pre-1500 profiles you have to edit one > person at a time. Just making it less interesting to the less-focused > editors has a big impact. (Human nature, you know.) But you can see that > these policies could be set much stricter in a really quality-focused wiki. > > > Best Regards > > Andrew > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >