# IAP Wiki Member Input Requested



## randyrls

The IAP has a knowledge base organized around a Wiki similar to Wikipedia. It contains detailed information about pens and pen making.  Click on the "Wiki" at the top of the IAP web pages to see it.  We are trying to determine how to make the Wiki grow and be a useful source of pen making information.  Please see this poll.  We want your thoughts on the Wiki to determine it's future.

Helpful wiki pages:
Quick Start shows how to navigate the wiki
Editing Help shows how the WYSIWYG Editor works.
Sandbox is a page where you can experiment with editing.
Style Guidelines explain the styles that should be used in the Wiki 

What would prompt you to add content to the Wiki?


----------



## Carl Fisher

You may want to fix the quick start link.

Should be: Quick Start - IAP-Wiki

I would be happy to contribute, but wiki's can be funny things when it comes to opinion on how or why to do something when everyone has the ability to edit the information.  There are 1000+ ways to turn a pen and many more opinions on how it should be done.  Some things we can definitely put down as fact, but many others will definitely have to be identified as the contributors opinion or methods and not the only valid opinion or method.


----------



## walshjp17

If I had a unique method for some portion of the pen creation process, I would certainly feel motivated to contribute to the wiki.


----------



## jeff

My original vision for the wiki was that all our good forum information, which can sometimes be fragmented across different threads separated by months or years, would "find its way" into the wiki. 

"Find its way" is the tricky part! It doesn't happen by magic. We almost need a team of editors who crawl the forums, collecting the best bits and pieces of threads and posts, and assembling them into wiki entries. That's a huge job, as is keeping the wiki neat and orderly and properly structured.

The wiki is not and should not be a substitute for forum discussions or focused tutorials. We haven't yet found quite the right approach to make it a useful augmentation to our discussions and library. 

I envisioned the wiki as the most gigantic and easily accessibly repository of pen making information known to humankind. I think that within our forum and library we have that information, and maybe with our Google Site search it's as accessible as it needs to be. Perhaps Randy's poll here will spark some discussion that tells us whether to keep working on it, or let it go.


----------



## ctubbs

*WIKI*

I see so much info/data here in the forums that needs to be saved, but I have no idea of how to select or edit the good info or even if what I think is good stuff really is.  What I believe should be kept could just as likely be junk to the next turner.  Decisions, Decisions.

What Jeff envisions is a great idea, just how to put it together is way beyond my pay grade.

Charles

Edit;  By the way, when or what ever became of the zip code thing?


----------



## Carl Fisher

Jeff,

Your vision is perfect for what it should be.  I would be happy to help contribute to the Wiki.  I spend enough time on the site anyway.

I would suggest a small Wiki group of users with a button added to threads (if available through the software) to report posts to to this group for review and possible inclusion.  Once information has been identified and agreed upon that it's accurate then one of the Wiki group members can be responsible for formatting and placing it in the Wiki.  A sub-forum can be created with access by this group only for conversations related to this.


----------



## randyrls

walshjp17 said:


> If I had a unique method for some portion of the pen creation process, I would certainly feel motivated to contribute to the wiki.



John;  How about checking out this page.  See which pens that you do and don't have a page yet and create one.  I certainly nave not done every pen available, but information on bushings, drill bit sizes, tube dimensions, etc would be a good source of information for our community.


----------



## randyrls

Carl Fisher said:


> I would be happy to contribute, but wiki's can be funny things when it comes to opinion on how or why to do something when everyone has the ability to edit the information.  There are 1000+ ways to turn a pen and many more opinions on how it should be done.  Some things we can definitely put down as fact, but many others will definitely have to be identified as the contributors opinion or methods and not the only valid opinion or method.



Carl;  I tend to agree with you.  There are many slightly different ways people have come up with to complete a pen.  Not all are identical.


----------



## 76winger

I'm also of the opinion that it may not be needed on this site. With all the content in the discussion forums, it just seems redundant. And I can see how multiple contributors changing each others content could stir up some contention. 

But that doesn't mean it couldn't work either. I'm sure wikipedia had similar hurdles to work through in their infancy. And I'll be the first to admit I don't know enough about wiki's to even be dangerous. My only exposure to any of them are Google searches definitions of this topic or that thing, and invariable I get a wikipedia link that provides clarity to my question. Often more than I wanted!


----------



## edstreet

I am going to have to withhold any input as the poll questions and setup does not make much sense, it seems to be jumbled phrases lacking cohesion and there is some lack of information that is needed for users to accurately answer with.  Sorry, not meaning to offend anyone.


----------



## BigShed

I am a moderator on a fairly large forum and we have the Wiki facility as well.

After an initial rush when it was first introduced it seems to be now mainly ignored, I don't know the real reason(s) for that.

My own personal reason for not contributing to a Wiki is this quote from the Wiki description:
*
The content of IAP-Wiki can be updated by any member of IAP *

There is not much point in writing a tutorial on how I do things, be that the right or the wrong way, that someone else (who may know more or even less than I) can come along and change what I have described. On top of that I may not even know that this has happened.

Seems a perfect recipe for endless frustration and even argument.

So I voted the Not interested option.


----------



## Holz Mechaniker

we have the Library, that is pretty much the exact same thing.  Only a Mod or the author could edit.

pretty much a redundant with a Wiki and Library and under redundant is says see redundant


----------



## Sawdust46

Jeff, your thought to collect the information is great but the "how to" is the issue.  I agree with others that it can't be something that can be edited by anyone.  There are just too many ways to do things.  I can think of threads about several topics that have many different successful methods to do something, which is the "correct way"?  Think about applying CA, how many ways is that being done very successfully!  Then there are a few other topics like pricing, show selection, which kit is the "best", etc.  Anyone that has been on the site very long knows when these questions come up and in most cases there is no one single correct answer.
I must confess I had never been to WIKI until I saw this thread.  If I had a question/issue I would do a search and/or go to the library.


----------



## randyrls

*Best Practices*



randyrls said:


> Carl Fisher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things we can definitely put down as fact, but many others will definitely have to be identified as the contributors opinion or methods and not the only valid opinion or method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carl;  I tend to agree with you.  There are many slightly different ways people have come up with to complete a pen.  Not all are identical.
Click to expand...


Carl;  I've been mulling this over and while you are correct about the opinion concept, but I believe a "best practices" group of techniques and processes can be developed.

Opinions can be labeled as such.


----------



## randyrls

Holz Mechaniker said:


> we have the Library, that is pretty much the exact same thing.  Only a Mod or the author could edit.
> 
> pretty much a redundant with a Wiki and Library and under redundant is says see redundant



Drew;  I have seen many different lists of pen tube sizes, bushing sizes, etc, but new pens come out all the time and any list is soon out-of-date.  It isn't easy to add additional information to the document unless you are the original creator.


----------



## randyrls

edstreet said:


> I am going to have to withhold any input as the poll questions and setup does not make much sense, it seems to be jumbled phrases lacking cohesion and there is some lack of information that is needed for users to accurately answer with.  Sorry, not meaning to offend anyone.



Ed;  Not offended;  my writing skills range from pitiful to non-existent at best.

I try to contribute to the group as best I can...


----------



## edstreet

I sent a private MSG on this to clear up some confusion that I have.


----------



## edstreet

I have to wonder here, and yes I did clear up my confusion about this, so bear with me on this 

I posted some time ago about bushing sizes, tube sizes and variations among kits.  I was told to go look at the library.  I did just that and discovered the document was many years old and did not have half the material that I was looking for.

From that I started thinking, what if we had a program, some type of database program, to house all the pen parts and decent details about them, that way members could add records as they see fit, not change other people's records but just add their own, or edit their own.  That way we could see reports of specific things like bushing diam, tube diam, tube length, quirks, failures etc ..

I was told to contribute to the library but that I just mentioned is a great undertaking and really is best done by collaborative effort and will only net good reliable results with a greater number of people.  It need not be super detailed either or could be as detailed as you want to add in.

From that there is also an even greater need in other areas: take tools for example, supplies, known problems with various things like CA causing cracking, and the list goes on and on.

Library?  Sure if one person wants to write and article, say I do one on photography that would be library worthy.  Send everything else to the wiki 

Editing other users posts?  Well that could happen yes but that really depends on your approval moderators yes?  Submit for approval then it's pass/fail.

Lack of participation?  How about contest and challenges as to number of posters in a given period, say month, quarter, section of the wiki and various other things.  Make it worth the uses time to participate and make it rewarding.  If users can see a reward or some benefit in it then they will come, in droves.


----------



## Marc

I am uncertain as to the need for this however, I did a quick tour of the Wiki and found some useful information regarding Cigar pens, one of my favorite pen kits.  So I was able to quickly find some information that I did not even know to look for.  

It seems to me that there are lots of barriers to overcome to make this work and I do think there would be a bit of redundancy and confusion when one can find so much useful info in the library and in searching the forums.

That said, I do like the vision you described Jeff, and I think more familiarity with mechanics would help me understand the whole thing.  This is such a great site that it does make be a bit nervous when we start talking about an evolution that I don't really understand very well.  The old saying, "If it is not broken, don't fix it!" comes to mind.


----------

