This site recently underwent a major upgrade. Some features may not work or work differently. Please report any issues to User_talk:Admin.
Galoot-o-pedia talk:Wiki organization
It's really important to remember that a wiki is bad at being a normal web site. It doesn't really like index pages, etc. It's better at making articles and linking those together with the rest of the wiki. It's fairly easy to use Categories to arrange subjects, but structuring subjects into pages is hit-and-miss.
With a wiki you can't dole out assignments or tell people what they can and can't do. It's best to put out clear ideas, ask for feedback, and then describe what it makes sense to do while leaving room for new ideas. However, as wikis form (in my experience) they do tend to undergo massive editing.
There are a couple of strong suggestions for how to progress with the wiki. First, I believe it's important to encourage (or downright beg) people with appropriate knowledge/interest to write a moderate, straightforward article. I don't believe place-holder or 'blurb' articles to be useful--with some exceptions. It's easier to re-structure, divide or expand a straightforward useful article than it is to take a few sentences to a few paragraphs. Also, there is no shame from encouraging folks that have already written articles (web pages, blogs, or emails to the list) to just plunk them into an article to latter be edited as appropriate.
Second, ideas about structure need to be accessible and clearly indicated--but not restrictive. The concept is to have people on the same wavelength and not lost or (overly) pioneering.
Perhaps a sidebar on the Main page with links to an explanation of 'structure' as has been mentioned hereComplete
- and links to suggestions of article to be written.
We should also find the quick-and-dirty wikipedia article editing page and link to that.Complete
- There is Special:WantedPages for articles wanted.
- We can also create "Project Pages" that list articles planned on a particular topic. An example would be tool restoration, where electrolysis, repairing wood defects, japanning, tuning planes would all be subsets.
Overview of Suggested Organization
How about three distinct sections: A galoot encyclopedia (Galootopedia), Dictionary, and 'Porch Support'.Porch support could be digesting old threads, or simply pages compiling links to the archives of messages on a particular subject. It could also contain porch-specific articles like bios, history, lore etc. --Brian Rytel (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (AKDT)
I've given this more thought and believe the following is the a better way to organize the wiki. Several categories will split up the major topics. Each will be further arranged with subcategories, see the "Category:???" pages for details of what's appropriate for that category.
- Will contains articles for actual tools, details, and evolution. Would also be the appropriate place for Type studies.
- Articles for manufacturers and independent makers.
- Use (? a better name for this cat would be appreciated. Other ideas: skills, using tools)
- Details of how a particular tool is used and general skills/techniques for hand woodworking
- The area for porch and community related projects and entries. Could contain bios and conversation summaries.
The dictionary portion seems well relegated to the Definitions page at the moment. There needs to be some guidelines for that page though.
A note on Wiki Categories
Categories don't work in a totally hierarchical structure in a Wiki. Another way of stating this is that Categories are not like folders on a computer. This makes managing the structure a bit more delicate. Luckily it's very easy to manipulate categories in a wiki. you just need to add a tag to the end of the article: Category:NAMEOFCATEGORY . To make category "B" a subcategory of "A" add the Category:A tag to the bottom of the Category:B page. ---Admin (talk)
Style & Quality of Content
The galootopedic section should have some features of an encyclopedia, but shouldn't have as strong of standards. This wiki won't have research papers citing it. So I'd say we aim for balanced not objective. When disagreements exist both sides should be explained.
Research and sources/citations are important and fairly easy to do in a wiki, it's often easier to work this in early on in the article than to try and fit it later. However, I'd much rather have content from the knowledge-base of galoots than have folks fretting over a bibliography when it isn't essential.
Feedback is welcome and necessary. What are your ideas for the organization of this wiki?