# Do we need an Army Wiki?



## dapaterson (16 May 2006)

A wiki is a website "that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit all content, very quickly and easily".  It can be used as a knowledge repository, where any user can amend or add to existing information.  The best-know example is the Wikipedia, online at http://en.wikipedia.org.

Do we need a Canadian Army wiki, where registered users can create and edit articles, providing a reference source?  It may be an easier construct to maintain than the usual "Have you tried the search function?" reply to some queries on the board, and would (hopefully) be maintained actively by users (I don't think we'd have any problems with army.ca users being reticent to share their knowledge.)

What do you folks think?  And, most important of all, what does Mike, our gracious host, think?


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

Great idea DAP,
I guess that they would still require some form of moderator function to keep an eye on some of the Yahoos and their ilk that visit.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Great idea DAP,
> I guess that they would still require some form of moderator function to keep an eye on some of the Yahoos and their ilk that visit.



Exactly my sentiments.  It would be hard to moderate, as its' size grew.  Too easy for a 'Troll', or someone with other ulterior motives, to corrupt, even if it were only for members.  Look at some of the people who have been on the site for some time before they were banned for such reasons.  It would become quite a means to do research, if only the people with the knowledge would post and not have to worry about others without the knowledge, or working on hearsay, changing facts to fiction.


----------



## GAP (16 May 2006)

How does Wikipedia handle it??


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> How does Wikipedia handle it??



With great difficulty, as I understand it.  They have a staff which tries to look for egregious errors in recent additions but it is now so big that they must rely, essentially, upon the public to report errors.

There are frequent _malicious_ changes to politically sensitive articles.  The various factions in the US and, more recently in Canada, regularly _edit_ articles about opponents.

Some university professors in Canada are refusing to accept citations from _Wikipedia_ and a few (one to my certain knowledge) have told students they will reject any essay that cites _Wikipedia_.

That being said a _Armypedia_ *IS* a ‘neat’ idea (but not necessarily a good one), if it can be managed.


----------



## GAP (16 May 2006)

Are we talking a simple knowledge base offshoot of army.ca, or a completely different site?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

I am really down on the idea of public wikis, frankly.  I do a lot of editing at wikipedia and it comes down to a battle of personalities, often. I just had an editing war with two 16 year old kids over a point, and they won out because they outnumbered me.  It's basically an encyclopedia by popular vote.

I do like the format of wikipedia, though, and borrowed the format for my site at www.canadiansoldiers.com - the software is free and if anyone else wanted to start a modern Canadian Army wiki, the only thing stopping them would be finding a server capable of handling the demands of a Mediawiki-based site.  Anyone who wants the software can get it free from www.mediawiki.org but beware - it is NOT user friendly, there is no real user manual, and the tech mailing list expects you to know quite a bit to start with. However, you CAN restrict editing access to users that have identified themselves, so there would be no anonymous vandalism, without requiring those who just want to read it to sign in, so it is not as bad as wikipedia - why they allow anonymous edits is beyond me, frankly. I think Mike would be able to set one up here quite easily.

Another option would be to start a project at wikipedia, say, "Modern Canadian Army Task Force" and concentrate efforts on making the wikipedia articles on the current Army as accurate and relevant as possible. You don't need permission, just the will to get it done. Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history

Not sure though if stuff like Recruiting FAQ would be relevant there, but would certainly be very appropriate here at army.ca - maybe just restrict access to Subscribers or even just Moderating Staff, if they have the desire to keep the wiki up. Captain O'Leary organized a lot of the FAQ type stuff I think and has website experience - he might find a wiki interface very useful here.

As far as historical info, if anyone has info on the Canadian Army in the 20th Century they feel is appropriate for an Army wiki, I am always seeking info for my site at www.canadiansoldiers.com - the advantage there is that unlike wikipedia, I would fully credit you by name for any material I find usable, and it wouldn't be monkeyed with by anyone but me.


----------



## MdB (16 May 2006)

Army.ca is very good for discussion and for informations related to experience of the army.

But as a knowledge base, it's not really user friendly. You have to browse through the discussions rather than find the info in an encyclopedia fashion. A restricted access to a Army.ca wikipedia could solve it easily. It could become a community of subscribers and moderators like the Military History Project Micheal Dorosh mentioned. How to do it would is left to discuss.

One simple example: the acronyms. There's so many, I get lost sometime. Now, how you find the meaning given there's also the same acronym outside military world, or Canadian military world. The sidebar acronyms are good, but it tells you the name and won't explain what it does. How do you tell CSOR from CSOR? The military standards personnel from the special operations unit? From the context, I know. Still, it could prove useful for neophytes.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Or for stuff like this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43818.0.html

I can't imagine what the edit wars would be like over, say, "PPCLI Snipers", but on the whole, the idea is starting to sound better and better. Mch easier to implement as an FAQ, I think. I'd recommend the Mediawiki software as it makes interlinking a snap.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 May 2006)

A wiki is not a bad idea. I've set up and managed a few for other purposes, and they definitely have their place. They also have a lot of drawbacks, as already mentioned. Allowing anonymous edits ensures you get a ton of info and updates - but it's also a guaranteed way to invite spammers to insert crap into your pages. You can roll back changes but it gets tiresome pretty quickly. Even if you require registration before editing, the spammers just register then edit away. (They have automated tools to help in this task.)

You also can't guarantee the accuracy of the information, and it puts a pretty large drain on resources to try to keep things honest. The challenge is trying to find a large enough audience of contributors to ensure you have a wiki filled with good, timely and accurate information without extending that audience into those who would corrupt the information.

Subscribers and DS I think is far too small an audience. Registered members is possibly too big, since registration is a small hurdle for a spammer. Possibly registration + time logged + # of posts, as with the chat room.

If there is enough demand, I'd be happy to set up a trial wiki. Hopefully it's registration system can be linked to the forums, to keep things simple.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2006)

How about a "by request" (or invitational) membership? The mods would decide on a group to start off with, most likely those who already have a lot of knowledge and experience in military history, and they get to invite those they think will be able to provide the most accurate information. It would allow only those who have a "proven" background to post, no matter how long they wait. (After all, I'm sure there are nintendojtf2ninjasnipers hiding around who would jump on the occasion to say "JTF-2 R0><0RZ")

Although, I guess the easiest way that would accomplish both goals (large enough audience to have good content and preventing spammers/vandals) is to have something like Mr. Bobbitt suggested. After all, it's his site.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

I think it would be most useful not just for history, but ongoing stuff too - dress regulations, women in the forces, descriptions of the various trades - we see these questions come up a LOT in the forum and a wiki would be a user friendly way of sharing the info; the pitfall as Mike mentions is ensuring the info is accurate - however, the use of links to the official Army site on pages dealing with current stuff would help ease that concern, where appropriate.  

It might seem repetitive to have stuff here when it can be found on the Army site, however, a wiki would be much more user friendly, and we would be able to add personal experience to the mix - perhaps even providing links from the wiki to relevant threads here in the forum. For example, a Wiki article on the 031 trade might have a brief description of the infantry trade, a link to an official recruiting site, a list of reserve and regular units (with wiki links to articles on those units, which would themselves have links to the "official" sites), and then perhaps links to relevant topic threads here on the forum for where the trade has been discussed in depth and with personal experiences.  

I think the idea is a winner if done such that clutter and garbage are minimized.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

I think that this may be a bit much to chew.  It would require the constant proof reading of a "Keeper" so that it doesn't get corrupted or hacked.  With numerous 'threads' it would require dedicated "Keepers" for each topic raised and discussed.  Constant editing would require constant monitoring to keep it accurate.  Even if every member of this site were to hand two topics apiece, we still wouldn't have enough people to properly police the topics.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that this may be a bit much to chew.  It would require the constant proof reading of a "Keeper" so that it doesn't get corrupted or hacked.  With numerous 'threads' it would require dedicated "Keepers" for each topic raised and discussed.  Constant editing would require constant monitoring to keep it accurate.  Even if every member of this site were to hand two topics apiece, we still wouldn't have enough people to properly police the topics.



This isn't correct.  If everyone had the option to "watch" topics as we do at wikipedia, policing would be quite simple. You simply look at the changes and instantly revert to an older version. Its simple and painless, and each page would be watched by multiple people - editors tend to be proprietary, even over minor changes. And if registration was a prerequisite, the amount of spam would be quite low. In essence, the proprietary spirit would encourage multiple keepers - even at wikipedia upkeep is rather minor, even with the all the spam going on there. It would be a very minor concern here and easily solved.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> This isn't correct.  If everyone had the option to "watch" topics as we do at wikipedia, policing would be quite simple. You simply look at the changes and instantly revert to an older version. Its simple and painless, and each page would be watched by multiple people - editors tend to be proprietary, even over minor changes. And if registration was a prerequisite, the amount of spam would be quite low. In essence, the proprietary spirit would encourage multiple keepers - even at wikipedia upkeep is rather minor, even with the all the spam going on there. It would be a very minor concern here and easily solved.



Unfortunately, Michael, I disagree.  With the volume of data that we are already discussing, it would be very time consuming to monitor these thousands of pages constantly.  I really don't disagree with you on the simplicity of the editing and restore functions of this software, but using your own example with the two 16 year olds, it can be a lost cause.




			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I am really down on the idea of public wikis, frankly.  I do a lot of editing at wikipedia and it comes down to a battle of personalities, often. I just had an editing war with two 16 year old kids over a point, and they won out because they outnumbered me.  It's basically an encyclopedia by popular vote.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

The solution to seeing who is right is simple -  a trial wiki, as Mike suggested.


----------



## muskrat89 (16 May 2006)

.... and since it appears to be so simple a project, and a great idea to boot - it sounds like a great addition to www.canadiansoldiers.com


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> .... and since it appears to be so simple a project, and a great idea to boot - it sounds like a great addition to www.canadiansoldiers.com



Not feasible, since my project is devoted to historic stuff 1900-2000 - I think it would make a great addition to army.ca - same colour, same format, with links between the forum and the wiki. I mean the actual historical content at army.ca has been minimal - this would be a great way to make it easy to expand that, in addition to creating an interactive FAQ that is much easier to access than old forum threads. With the added advantages of having a uniform look.

I'd be happy to house historical info on my site in my format - but I am restricting access on my site so that it is not a wiki - just happens to use the wiki software.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

;D

Michael, Michael!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 May 2006)

Give me a bit of time to set up a trial. As the Staff have alluded to, if it becomes a drain on resources, we'll have to drop it, however if it truly is "self policed" then it might just work. We simply don't have the resources to spend cleaning up the messes of bored web vandals, but a trial will give everyone involved an idea of what's involved, what's required and what's to gain.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Give me a bit of time to set up a trial. As the Staff have alluded to, if it becomes a drain on resources, we'll have to drop it, however if it truly is "self policed" then it might just work. We simply don't have the resources to spend cleaning up the messes of bored web vandals, but a trial will give everyone involved an idea of what's involved, what's required and what's to gain.



If it doesn't work, it doesn't work - appreciate your willingness to try it though. Like they said in the days of Apollo - "It may fail, but if so, it won't be because of me."


----------



## GAP (16 May 2006)

Why not limit the trial to definitions, dress, units or some such common topics...the wiki does not have to be initially huge, let it grow over a year or two, but limit it initially to relevent subjects.


----------



## vangemeren (16 May 2006)

Another idea would be to just edit the articles they already have, to see how much spamming you get from that experience.

P.s If you're looking for help, I'll volunteer my services where I can. (even with my lack of service I have)


----------



## GAP (16 May 2006)

I too would be willing to help, but I am probably so outdated, that my knowledge base is very limited. 

question: would subjects/info/etc need to have sources of information attached prior to being approved???


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I too would be willing to help, but I am probably so outdated, that my knowledge base is very limited.
> 
> question: would subjects/info/etc need to have sources of information attached prior to being approved???



They wouldn't have to, but the success of the wiki would be dependent on peer review, I think. Basically, the owner could insist on any level of documentation he wanted - from none, to every sentence footnoted, to somewhere in between. Kind of one of those things that evolves as the wiki does.

Your idea of a limited focus at first is a good one. Why not start out with just recruiting type info, and stuff on current trades and units?


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Anyone who wants the software can get it free from www.mediawiki.org but beware - it is NOT user friendly, there is no real user manual, and the tech mailing list expects you to know quite a bit to start with.



DO NOT download that software on to a server that is also being used for commercial purposes.  [i.e.- your server at work].


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> DO NOT download that software on to a server that is also being used for commercial purposes.  [i.e.- your server at work].



Out of curiousity, why's that?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2006)

Why amI  thinking like just about any "free" downloads that the spyware is going to run rampent....


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 May 2006)

No spyware (it's open source and easily verified) but whiskey intimated that it's a licensing issue, esp. for commercial enterprises.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> No spyware (it's open source and easily verified) but whiskey intimated that it's a licensing issue, esp. for commercial enterprises.



Do you mean under the terms of the license that Mediawiki sets out?  I can't see where a wiki would be used as a commercial enterprise (ie to sell stuff), unless the content itself was what was being offered as a commodity? Which wouldn't be the case here? Especially since subscriptions are voluntary and offer greater access to the forums as well as swag, not greater access to wiki content.


----------



## MdB (16 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I really don't disagree with you on the simplicity of the editing and restore functions of this software, but using your own example with the two 16 year olds, it can be a lost cause.



This would probably not happen if we use the invitational membership and groups could work pretty well as Frederik G has pointed out. It would also be the way to go to minimize spamming or excessive overseeing and maximize data accuracy.



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> How about a "by request" (or invitational) membership? The mods would decide on a group to start off with, most likely those who already have a lot of knowledge and experience in military history, and they get to invite those they think will be able to provide the most accurate information.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 May 2006)

It also has to strike a balance with administrative overhead. We can't spend our days adding/removing people from the wiki, which is where the "automated enrollment" of time served + posts is handy.


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

wonder if we can link the Verbal, written, C&P + banned procedures from this application to the wiki application? ..... if the guy is a troll in one, he'll be a troll there too.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> wonder if we can link the Verbal, written, C&P + banned procedures from this application to the wiki application? ..... if the guy is a troll in one, he'll be a troll there too.



Not all Verbal Warnings etc. are trolls; sometimes discussions just get heated. I've been on counselling here, many productive posters have. Shouldn't limit their ability to contribute in other arenas necessarily.


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

wasn't intending to ban the avid fans..... just suggested that the rules we live by here are applied seamlessly there.


----------



## ZipperHead (16 May 2006)

This is an excellent idea, and one that has been thrown around here in Gagetown (the Arty School gave me the idea, and I am trying to sell it within the Armour School).

At the Armour School, the Cmdt has a vision whereby all the content that is available for those here (Documentum (where all the courseware is held, including videos, photos, animations, etc), all that the DWAN/DIN has to offer, links to Corps websites, etc) will be available to everyone (including those that don't have access to DWAN, such as Reservists, cadets, etc), so that people can learn "anytime, anywhere". _*Edit:* Obviously, security concerns will trump the rights for Billy Bob to access content that isn't meant for John Q Public to see. But a great deal of the info on the DIN isn't classified, so that should be available to all that need it._ To that end, we now have a dedicated (civilian) Webmaster who will ensure that all the contents are maintained and current (i.e. not neglected due to manpower issues as has been the case in the past). Something along the lines of an "Armour Wikipedia" would allow anybody to contribute their knowledge, in a meaningful way, not just those who are "voluntold" to contribute an article to the Armour Journal. As well, a discussion forum (along Army.ca lines) is being discussed, as a means of people staying in contact, and remaining current on different issues (world news, Allied militaries, and whatever else people may want to discuss). This would likely be strictly controlled (login using "Bloggins.IM@forces.gc.ca") for what might be considered obvious reasons to some, not so obvious to others. :

Due to the techno-phobia amongst a certain generation of soldiers, this suggestion was met by stunned silence (because they'd never heard of such a beast), or outright dismay, when brought up. I think that there are too many people championing the "it can't (or shouldn't) be done" vs the "hell yeah!! Knowledge for and from the masses". I agree that it might be a mess to administer (admittedly, I have put less than 2 minutes of research time into the mechanics, so I may be sorely disappointed once I dive into the nuts and bolts of creating/running such an endeavour), but those things can be overcome if you throw enough muscle and resources behind them. 

I'm grateful for the link, Michael, as now I have a start point to research the initial "point of entry", and see how manageful (or unmanageable) this beast might be. I think that if it is kept (somewhat) selective on who can contribute (i.e to get editing write access, you must be able to provide some form of proof that you are military.... not neccesarily a SME, but at least you know of what you speak..... how that would be determined might be the biggest bone of contention: is it your Service Number? An account administered via the IT Cell in the Armour School (through unit ADP Reps)? A "sponsor" (unit CO/SSM/Tp WO, etc)? 

I think it's something that definitely requires investigation, because there is so much information "out there" that never gets put down onto paper, due to an unwilling and perhaps uncaring system, or it's too hard for someone to get their ideas/experiences/thoughts published for all too see. Does anybody remember the article a few years back (CAJ, I believe) that was written by 2 Corporals from 2PPCLI? I heard more than a few officers refer derogatively about the "paper written by those Cpl's.....". I thought that it was good work, and that lofty thoughts needn't only be written by those with a degree. The experience of 2 Corporals certainly counts for something, in my books, anyways. 

I'm glad to see that such a project is being bandied about in an unofficial capacity, as it may force the other School's to react, and create something official, so that they don't get left behind. We ARE in the 21st century, after all, so maybe we should utilize the technologies that we are blessed (and sometimes cursed) with, to get the information out to as many people as possible.

I'll be curious to see what input everyone has to see whether or not this has potential, or is it just a big soup sandwich waiting to happen. 

Al


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Allan, I am willing to bet the biggest problem you will find is the same problem that regimental newsletter editors have been seeing for decades now - few people with the combination of talent, education, subject knowledge, experience, and desire to sit down and contribute in a meaningful way. Your wiki project may come down to, in the end, a couple of corporals who really love doing the updates, but without perhaps the experienced eye a 30 year MWO might have for content.  Like all new technologies, the human equation still weighs the heaviest.

I think that's what I meant by my comment on 16 year olds. Nothing against youthful exuberance, but the guys you would love to see contribute, by and large have other fish to fry. Hopefully you find a way around that kind of inertia. Luckily the learning curve for formatting contributions to a Mediawiki-style website is (relatively) small.


----------



## couchcommander (16 May 2006)

A CFwiki would be a great idea IMO, and a great addition to the information on the CASR DND 101 website. 

Mike's idea of requiring registration + a certain number of posts I think would surfice to make sure it's not some automated spamming software, and as well give the person time to show themselves to be a malicious idiot and get banned if they are. 

re: the policing - that's usually done by the average user on wikipedia - moderators only get involved in touchy topics. I'm quite sure with all of the *ahem* personalities on these boards they're is more than enough interest to ensure that if a malicious change is made it will immediately be reverted. 

As long as the vast majority of the users are actually interested in the truth and not pushing a certain agenda, things will be fine. Of course though, as wikipedia has taught us, there are some topics that need to be "closed" and very closely monitored - but this is by far an exception not the rule. 

On that note, a study found wikipedia to be just as accurate as Britannica. 

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Any fears of internet vandals running away with it or gross inaccuracies should be put to rest. 

re: trouble finding information - not in my experience. If you use google and just add "wikipedia" to the end I've managed to pretty much come across everything that I've needed, except if there isn't an article yet of course. 

I don't think I'd quote any encyclopedia in a university essay though, wikipedia or not. But if I did, for some reason, I would verify the information with another source - as always. I have, however on many occasions, used wikipedia to orient me with the general subject matter of a new concept so that I can be informed about the whole situation while doing more indepth research on specific points. 

re: the licensing, it's released under GNU GPL from what I understand - you're free to download, copy, modify, and redistribute the software as you please in any environment (provided that if you modify and then redistribute it, you give it another name of course). Mediawiki does not offer third party indemnity though, so if at some point a piece of the code is found to violate some patent rights you are just as liable as them.... saying that I don't think someone is going to sue army.ca for all it's worth to try and defend their patent rights if mediawiki violated them (which is a rare occurance in the open source community - and most, like SCO group, are bunk anyway).


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

A CF supported,funded and managed wiki?

Having been involved, in a minor part with the original Forum that was supported by the CF, I will tell you that they (the CF) would drop said WIKI in a minute the second some jerk / jackass started to spout off.

The masters of the puzzle palace on the Rideau killed it once and they'll do it again IMHO (and to my chagrin)


----------



## ZipperHead (16 May 2006)

I took a quick look at the MediaWiki site, and as you mentioned, the whole wiki contribution issue isn't as user friendly as I would have hoped. Something that is easy to navigate (i.e. make it as painless as possible for technophobes to contribute, so as not to exclude their input) would go a long way to making this get off the ground. We still have far too many people who have difficulty opening their email in Outlook, let alone start farting around with tags, coding, etc.

I checked out your site, and rooted around (content, forum), and I can definitely see potential for something similar for the Armour Corps (let alone any other Corps, unit, regiment, etc). Something that people WANT to go to, for news, information, staying in contact with people, and whatnot, would be the biggest challenge, methinks. The military has a habit of bleeding all of the fun out of any given endeavour, and as geo mentioned, any sign of controversy (a dodgy posting in an "official" site) would be shut down faster than any one of us could imagine (and for good reason, as there are so many people out there that love it when there is any sign of scandal within the military). It's a fine line, to be sure: give people a voice so they can share their knowledge/experience in a less than formal setting, but being mindful of the jerks who don't think about the potential for disaster a careless post can cause, ruining it for the great majority. I'd like to think that people would be "professional", but I'm cynical/jaded enough to know that wouldn't always work out. A simple solution is making people accountable for what they post (that falls under the "well, duh!!!!" category), but I see it too often in my job (IT Tp WO) that people who have signed (and presumably read) the various paperwork that must be signed before getting DWAN/DIN access, still "don't get it": surfing for porn, sending hate-mail, sending joke emails, etc, etc. 

There are definitely issues that need to be investigated, massaged, worked out, but I suspect that things such as Wiki, message boards, and the like are the way ahead, so that soldiers can get access to all the information they need, without having to dig endlessly on the DIN (ever do a search on the DIN? I'd rather poke a needle in my eye than try to do a DIN site search) to get the info they want/need. Expecting The Man to provide the info, or a relatively simple means of updating said info, is far too unwieldly, and if a mechanism was put into place where people voluntarily updated it (imagine that?!?! allowing people to voluntarily doing something!!! Without ordering them to do it!!! Wow, what a concept) the information would constantly be updated (with the understanding, of course, that it may not be 100% correct (and/or authorized), but at the least, a link to the "official" information could then be provided). 

This is what is sorely needed, IMO: a central repository of all the links that one would ever need. Trying to track down info (and considering I feel that I am of above average skill in this regard) can be like death, because you have to know WHERE to look, and unless you are familiar with the alphabet-soup lexicon employed within the various HQ's, good freaking luck. At the minimum, some Wiki-style site on the DIN, where people could post useful and relevant links (admin-, branch-, trade-, technical-related, etc) would be a good jumping off point. And let it evolve (as these things always do) from there. 

Al


----------



## big bad john (16 May 2006)

I like the idea of a Army.ca wiki with security based on Mike's idea of it based on the number of posts, sort of like the entry minimum to the chat room.  I would participate in contributing and in monitoring if needed.  

Allan has a brilliant idea for the Armour School wiki.  But will it pass security?  It never would in the UK.


----------



## couchcommander (16 May 2006)

A CFwiki ran by army.ca, I should have specified.


----------



## clasper (17 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> On that note, a study found wikipedia to be just as accurate as Britannica.
> 
> http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html



Nature's study had some rather serious flaws in methodology.  Britannica's rather vicious response is here:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf


----------



## couchcommander (17 May 2006)

The Britannica response is overinflated and dripping of corporate marketing teams.

_Nature_ has a point by point rebuttal of it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf


----------



## techie (13 Jul 2006)

http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Or, hover over the information tab at the top of this web page and it is the first option "wiki".
I personally have not added to it, although i would like to, but i dont feel i have the knowledge or experance to enter the information i want to enter.

EDIT- previous post was deleted. someone couldnt find the wiki.


----------

