Do we need an Army Wiki?

[dapaterson]

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]

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]

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]

How does Wikipedia handle it??

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[muskrat89]

.... 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]

.... 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]

;D

Michael, Michael!

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

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.