[Martin Taylor 2006.06.13.10.22]
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.06.13.0900 CDT)]
Well, I kinda think that a Wiki article can provide a general and established description of a proposed explanation of behavior and the experimental basis for that explanation. I think that is OK on the Wiki.
The wiki article should provide the terminology, background, and history of the program so that a reader has the basis for choosing to view the external links and understanding them. It would seem to me that, in addition to the external link to the CSG main site, other external links on the wiki could be the more in-depth things Martin is suggesting. However putting those things in a wiki article would be inappropriate.
Finally, I would emphasize that the wiki articles on PCT and the rest should be as factual as possible, rather than promotional.
You have to distinguish between "wiki" in general and Wikipedia in particular. What you say is correct for Wikipedia, but not for any other wiki unless the odministrators or users have decided on that policy.
I think a wiki is a very good place to deal with "discussable issues" for which the discussion itself has some research value, as well as the more factual matters in an area of research. Even on Wikipedia, the "talk" page that hides behind each topic page is used for discussions. And if one has Sysop kind of control of the Wiki, it's possible to install a discussion forum within it (I haven't done that for a wiki yet, but I've seen the extension that permits it).
Lots of groups have set up their own private wikis, so that they can put up material that is relevant to their topic area, but unsuited to Wikipedia. Perhaps it's too easy to do!
Martin
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.06.13.1035 CDT)]
Martin,
You are right, I was using wiki for Wiki (Wikipedia). I did mean that a basic summary on Wikipedia is ok, so long as it doesn't go beyond terminology, explanation, history, etc. It should not venture into promotion.
Yup, if there were a CSG-Wiki, what you suggest and more would be appropriate, including different document formats, debate, issues, etc.
Such a wiki should be moderated, however.
--Bry
Martin Taylor wrote:
ยทยทยท
[Martin Taylor 2006.06.13.10.22]
[Bryan Thalhammer (2006.06.13.0900 CDT)]
Well, I kinda think that a Wiki article can provide a general and established description of a proposed explanation of behavior and the experimental basis for that explanation. I think that is OK on the Wiki.
The wiki article should provide the terminology, background, and history of the program so that a reader has the basis for choosing to view the external links and understanding them. It would seem to me that, in addition to the external link to the CSG main site, other external links on the wiki could be the more in-depth things Martin is suggesting. However putting those things in a wiki article would be inappropriate.
Finally, I would emphasize that the wiki articles on PCT and the rest should be as factual as possible, rather than promotional.
You have to distinguish between "wiki" in general and Wikipedia in particular. What you say is correct for Wikipedia, but not for any other wiki unless the odministrators or users have decided on that policy.
I think a wiki is a very good place to deal with "discussable issues" for which the discussion itself has some research value, as well as the more factual matters in an area of research. Even on Wikipedia, the "talk" page that hides behind each topic page is used for discussions. And if one has Sysop kind of control of the Wiki, it's possible to install a discussion forum within it (I haven't done that for a wiki yet, but I've seen the extension that permits it).
Lots of groups have set up their own private wikis, so that they can put up material that is relevant to their topic area, but unsuited to Wikipedia. Perhaps it's too easy to do!
Martin