Do we need an Army Wiki?

[Michael Dorosh]

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]

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]

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]

I too would be willing to help, but I am probably so outdated, that my knowledge base is very limited.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

I too would be willing to help, but I am probably so outdated, that my knowledge base is very limited.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

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]

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]

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

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ZipperHead]

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 "[email protected]") 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]

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]

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]

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]

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