Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoops7k
That was me. I tried to cite the sources as best as I could. I will try to add more.
Thanks. If you're willing, take a look at the revisions I made in those and other articles - it may help in formatting the text and references for future work. Not trying to be difficult, just to maintain a consistent style. Your help is appreciated!
Bulletin boards are great for keeping current, but lousy for building a foundation of knowledge when you do not know anything about a subject. Even with search, it is hard to piece together the basic information and then find all the updates.6
Wikis (or straight websites) can present information in a more logical and complete manner but get out of date quickly and are not conducive for chat. Volunteers try to keep FAQs and wikis up-to-date but it is time consuming and much can be missed.
Agree.
I own a large industy BB and a few folks screamed for a Wiki and it vanished without trace sadly - for the above reasons.
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
I have just added a new page to the wiki talking about the Contract of Carriage, which includes links to all known (and available) revisions of the CoC. The page is still pretty basic; I envision it being fleshed out to include a "changelog" for each CoC (i.e. a summary of the changes from the previous CoC to the next), but that would require someone with the time and patience to diff each respective CoC. Nevertheless, I think it would be useful...
I'm trying to be a better citizen - just added a few notes on the Seattle RCC. I'll add notes on others as I can - I'm going to SFO next week, one of my favorites.
Is there a way to call for moderation on a specific page? I keep removing a redundant piece of information that is non-standard to include in a Wiki and a contributor continues to add it back.
The author of a page should have final say over what appears there. If there is to be a moderator, it should be the original author.
That is not standard practice for a Wiki site - have you ever contributed to one? Usually such a discussion should take place on the Talk page, but it would be moderated; admittedly, you and I seem to be having this discussion here which is non-standard, but something tells me that Cepheid will check this before the two pages in question on the Wiki
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
Just because you don't personally like it, removing useful information that someone adds is bad form.
Again, I really don't think you've ever contributed to a Wiki. Wikipedia has standard practices, as do other Wikis. One of those standard practices is not to include "updated" information on a page as it can be found on the history page. The idea behind a Wiki is that it is to reflect the most current information currently available, so adding an "updated" note is not only redundant with the History page, it serves no purpose.
Can you provide justification for adding this information since it already exists on the history page?
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
Usually such a discussion should take place on the Talk page, but it would be moderated
If it's discussion related to the functioning of the wiki, not to the content, I'd actually prefer that it be done on the Talk page of the appropriate article(s). I'd prefer this thread to remain dedicated to discussion of wiki content, improvements, submissions, and the like. That said, it won't kill me to discuss wiki "operational" matters here, if we must.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
something tells me that Cepheid will check this before the two pages in question on the Wiki
I check the "Recent Updates" page on the wiki every day right before I check FT. But, I don't read all changes, especially not to the two pages to which I think you are referring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
Can you provide justification for adding this information since it already exists on the history page?
That was actually asked earlier, in the thread related to the fleet page(s); mahasamatman commented that the history page includes all history, including any minor update that may not change the substance of the page, and also does not necessarily include the user's FT handle (if the user chose not to register on FlyerGuide and/or used a different handle). Those are all correct comments. I do agree with you that I think the "updated by" info is redundant, and have commented as such in the past, but I don't have huge objections to it and those pages will eventually become much more static, anyway.
So, I see both sides of the argument; I would prefer to leave that line out, but I'm OK with leaving it in. But... I'd much prefer we spend our efforts in adding additional pages and/or substantially improving the older existing pages, rather than arguing about one relatively harmless line.
Programs: United 1K/0.4MM+; SPG Pt; various other programs of no consequence
Posts: 25,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
That is not standard practice for a Wiki site - have you ever contributed to one?
Probably more than you have. I'd say 30 or 40 in the past year. As has been pointed out, the history page is pretty useless for determining actual content change, since the majority of changes on these pages is formatting and minor changes. Having to click twice to get information that should be presented on the first hit is very clearly poor UI design, but I'm sure you've never done any of that either.
The greatest "crime" one can do on a Wiki is to remove someone else's information simply because it doesn't jibe with your personal opinions.
__________________ Join us for SIN Do 2010: thread/official web page.
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime.
Last edited by mahasamatman; Jul 7, 09 at 3:12 pm.
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
As much as I appreciate both of your contributions, guys, if you're going to debate this in this thread, let's keep it impersonal, please. I'd like to keep the wiki, and this thread, going strong, and I know you do, too... so while debate is great, I would kindly request that everyone forego the personal barbs.
That said... perhaps the "updated" line should go on the Talk page in a Changelog section, instead of on the main page? That way there's a nice history of who edited what (in terms of substantive changes, not formatting), and it's easily accessible and in a human-readable format, but it's not on the main page. Thoughts?
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
I just wanted to note that Mikel at WebFlyer has, at my request, added a [wiki] tag to the BBCode. Now, you can do:
[wiki=Article Name]Link Text[/wiki]
and it will auto-format a link (with text "Link Text") pointing to the wiki article "Article Name"
There is no "simple" format for [wiki]Article Name[/wiki] yet, but I've asked that it be added and hopefully it will be soon.
The Southwest Wiki originally had 40 or 50 separate articles, but in that form it was inconvenient to print or save for reading offline. There was also no easy way to check what edits had been made or that everything was up to date.
So about 18 months ago I changed the Wiki to a "flat" form, one giant article with subheadings. I recommend that you folks go to the flat form now so that you will not face the same problem I did. It took quite a few hours to copy and paste everything into one article. If you set it up that way from the start, you will save a lot of work.
I keep hoping that more FTers will jump in and add corrections or new material, but only two or three people ever do. Member ftnoob (don't you love that handle?) has carried most of the load lately, in addition to writing some astounding JavaScript bookmarklets that improve the functionality of the web pages at southwest.com.
I hope you folks get more involvement for the UA Wiki. It really is easy and kind of fun.
I respect your point of view, but I definitely don't want a flat-form Wiki. I couldn't imagine having all of the fleet information, elite level info, etc all together with info about lounges... it's too much info in one place.
Now if there's a way that could auto-combine every article under the category of United Airlines into one article, we could please everyone
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsx
The Southwest Wiki originally had 40 or 50 separate articles, but in that form it was inconvenient to print or save for reading offline.
I agree, but a flat-form article is inconvenient for reading online, which is the (intended and actual) primary access method for the wiki.
A flat-form is also incredibly inconvenient for searching or search engine indexing, plus it can take a while to load (especially on mobile browsers). For people who search or who have limited bandwidth, the articles are much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsx
There was also no easy way to check what edits had been made or that everything was up to date.
Diligent and creative use of the watchlist and/or Recent Changes pages make it easier to track edits. Most articles are quite static, so there isn't much to check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmvaughn
I respect your point of view, but I definitely don't want a flat-form Wiki.
Agreed. I'm glad that it works for nsx and those who frequent the Southwest area, but for the UA section, I just don't think it works. I would oppose a single-article flat-form wiki for that section. I find the separate articles much easier to navigate, especially when they're properly organized into categories.
Programs: UA 3P, US, AA, WN, TZ; HH, *W, MR, GP+ (non-elite on all)
Posts: 6,523
A number of S* profiles have been added to the wiki lately, and hopefully more are coming. We still need to flesh out the "regular" articles, though - profiles are only useful in certain situations, and we need more "human-readable" stuff. If you haven't contributed, please consider doing so - it's easy to do and we need all the help we can get.
[/color]
