Large Format Wiki

[goamules]

I agree, that's probably the ideal; factual articles written by experts. The problem is experts are busy, have businesses based on their expertise, or don't want to work for free. Volunteerism and the "open source" culture are great for the end user, but people still have to make a living. Perhaps the older generation, retirees, are the best source for this information, and would want to pass it on.

The other issue is a lot of information IS already out there. People don't want to buy or read a book or do a web search. How many times do we answer a ridiculously basic question by regurgitating what's already here? Or giving links. People will ask "What camera do I need" for the next 100 years, because they want a personal Delphi oracle - dialog with an expert. They don't want to research and decide on their own. So all the articles would sit there, and newbies would ask those same questions that are answered in the articles. It would help some, not others.

[David R Munson]

Many are busy, yes, but people can find the time if it's important to them. I'm not concerned about people who wouldn't contribute without compensation. We can do without people with that kind of attitude.

[Light Guru]

A wiki would be AMAZING.

I would love to see articles about different camera, different types of chemistry and film, etc.

[goamules]

Many are busy, yes, but people can find the time if it's important to them. I'm not concerned about people who wouldn't contribute without compensation. We can do without people with that kind of attitude.

You cannot tell people what's important to them, all you can do is ask. For example, there is a very knowledgeable and famous collector of early American daguerreotype equipment. To me, he would be the best subject matter expert to write on that topic. He has given back in huge ways and extended the world's knowledge of this period. But all one could do is ask, you can't twist someones arm and make them write something for free, or post something already written and copyrighted. Another person, recently deceased, had the 1800s factory ledgers for a very famous lens maker. He would always answer questions about when a lens was made, looking it up in his ledger. I worked with him planning to publish the ledger. He had hundreds of hours of labour scanning each page, and a lifetime of becoming an expert. I would gladly pay for a book of his experience....I would never have asked him to "give it away" because it's his business and choice.

[Tin Can]

I am a newbie. I am retired. I buy books. I use the library. Chicago Public Library has a lot of photography books. I spend months researching photography and buying old equipment. It has become years. Then I try to use it, without mentors, and only the web and books for resource.

I am far from lazy, and I do enjoy the chase, but LF in particular is difficult to penetrate. Better information sources would be very nice, now and far into the future. When most of us are long dead. I think of our children's children, well yours, I have only one step-daughter, a Pro photographer!

I also shoot lots of images for free, at community events, copy work for Artists, and even headshots for actors. Fortunately, I live in a bohemian part of Chicago, where many are creating.

This is just the beginning of the information age, don't get in the way of progress.

I agree, that's probably the ideal; factual articles written by experts. The problem is experts are busy, have businesses based on their expertise, or don't want to work for free. Volunteerism and the "open source" culture are great for the end user, but people still have to make a living. Perhaps the older generation, retirees, are the best source for this information, and would want to pass it on.

The other issue is a lot of information IS already out there. People don't want to buy or read a book or do a web search. How many times do we answer a ridiculously basic question by regurgitating what's already here? Or giving links. People will ask "What camera do I need" for the next 100 years, because they want a personal Delphi oracle - dialog with an expert. They don't want to research and decide on their own. So all the articles would sit there, and newbies would ask those same questions that are answered in the articles. It would help some, not others.

[goamules]

I'm not getting in the way, I'm saying use "experts" for the content, because our age is full of free information - that is wrong. I moderate a couple of Forums, and it takes a lot of volunteer hours to respond to answers people give that are wrong. In Wetplate, people often begin answering chemical and process questions before they've even learned the process. And in Wetplate, wrong answers can get people hurt, or at least waste valuable time and money. That's what you get with the information age. Too much....

[Brian C. Miller]

Rick, I am not even going to put that into quote tags! Any reply would get lost.

The problem with articles on the front page is that they are just that: posted articles, and to change them or add to them they have to be submitted to somebody. Again and again and again. Here's an update. Here's an update. Here's an update.

I've been doing internal Wiki-type documentation as a part of my job since internal web servers became popular. Yes, a separate site can go down, or be discontinued. The question is, can the database be easily moved from one system to another? Databases are backed up and transferred all the time, no problem. The question is one of whether the external service allows it.

As for searching the forum, to put it mildly, that can be a real headache. Google's search functionality has declined. Once upon a time, Altavista was the only search game on the web, and it had Boolean search terms that were just exquisite. Then Google came along, and it had a subset, and Altavista went downhill. Now Google has hardly any of its original search term functionality. Google searches by web page content, which includes signature lines, user location, and other garbage. It does not search according to the information contained in the vBulletin database.

Wiki content is dependent on those who contribute to it, just like the content of the home page and the forums. DUH! Same with encyclopedias. If the articles are written by subject matter experts, or at least by people with real experience, then the articles can be informative. As you pointed out, the traffic signal section isn't good. And as you inadvertently pointed out, you're not going to write a better Wikipedia article.

A Wiki is not really a separate content engine, it's a series of web pages served up by a web server. I really doubt that it would place a greater load on the server, and may even reduce the load due to fewer searches being conducted. Yes, more system software is loaded on the server. But as for CPU load, that's the same load as for serving up any other web page.

As for longevity of a project, there is nothing that says that any of this is eternal. Is the forum's database backed up off site? Didn't the forum go down for a while because its server got knocked over at the host?

So: is a wiki good or bad? Depends. It depends on the people involved, etc. Yes, any information repository requires editing, just the same as it requires content.

But this I know: All I need to start a wiki is to just do it. A small wiki with a few people is free from many service hosters, and one with more space and more users costs a minimal amount of money per month.

[David R Munson]

I'm not getting in the way, I'm saying use "experts" for the content, because our age is full of free information - that is wrong. I moderate a couple of Forums, and it takes a lot of volunteer hours to respond to answers people give that are wrong. In Wetplate, people often begin answering chemical and process questions before they've even learned the process. And in Wetplate, wrong answers can get people hurt, or at least waste valuable time and money. That's what you get with the information age. Too much....

If we are to rely only on "experts," we will not wind up with the resources the community needs and deserves. Not all the experts are what they're cracked up to be, and many humble people out there who would never normally be recognized as experts are, in fact, just that. And I don't believe that paying for articles is the way to go, either. I'm not going to demand that anyone work for free, but I have found that many of the best people out there will freely contribute their knowledge and experience for the sake of the greater good if asked. So why not ask? That people bother coming here for years on end and happily contribute is evidence of people wanting to be helpful and wanting to discuss something that is important to them. Creating articles is no different. Compensation has no link with the quality of content, either. This is already a community-based resource and I believe everything we need can come from the community as it stands.

[Kirk Gittings]

What bugs me as a working professional is the new "work for exposure (free) mentality" when the client (perhaps a startup magazine or blogger) is actually making money or trying to at least. Just last week a magazine approached me to work in trade for advertising. First he went on to tell how great the magazine was doing, winning awards, expanding into adjoining states etc. and then wanted me to work for advertising in a consumer market that is absolutely worthless to me. He couldn't understand why I turned him down saying no one else had. The onslaught of semipros giving their work away for exposure has become a tsunami that has virtually destroyed many markets that were the lifeblood of working pros-me included. This has always been an issue going back to when I started in 78 but now it is ubiquitous as digital has turned so many people into instant pros.

However that is not the case here with this Wiki idea. Just like this site it is not for profit and I believe their are many experts here (many who are amateurs in the strictest sense) who could make this happen.

[goamules]

Totally agree Kirk. There are several magazines that follow the "give me your content for free - I'll give you fame (while I get the fortune)" model. Even in our LF journals. But some of the above posts are also right, a FAQ or Wiki can be done with good volunteers. You may not get a comprehensive step-by-step on every process like in Adams "The Negative" but you can get helpful information.