Keep the Wiki?

[Erik]

We've just migrated servers and upgraded the Forum software (a minor patch, really, but it improves security) and some may have noticed that since the upgrade there are code warnings that pop up from time to time.

These are being caused by the Wiki add-on being older and incompatible with some other software on the new server.

Aside from living with the errors, our two choices are to pay for the upgrade to the Wiki software or to remove it.

Since nobody really seems to be using the Wiki I don't see any reason to throw good money after bad. But it's possible that I'm wrong and there is support for that area that I'm not aware of.

Please let me know what y'all think...

 

[mnbvcxz]

Whilst I think a Wiki is a good thing, I have rarely looked at it and if it is causing problems then it must go, but there is a lot of information contained within the forum posts that could be easier to find in a wiki and if there were a wiki that does not cost anything and does not interfere with the forum, then please consider that option.

 

[NeXT]

I've never used the wiki. Generally I found that the real wikipedia to be more complete. As much as its nice to have it feels redundant.

 

[SParent]

+1 to what NeXT said. Maintaining a Wiki that describes vintage computers is wasted time and money as it is already done with equal or greater quality by others.

Our area of expertise includes repairing those systems. Now a wiki describing common symptoms and common repair solutions for each computer would be something entirely different... We could keep and expand the Troubleshooting / How to sections, and remove the rest.

 

[mnbvcxz]

Wikipeadia will give a shallow level of information whereas a VCF Wiki could be a lot more technical, far more technical than Wikipeadia could ever be nor could they maintain the accuracy of that information.

 

[Al Kossow]

If you're going to make any changes, could you have a permanent link to the "New Posts" tab?
I like to look at all the recent messages and the link that "New Posts" points to goes stale

 

[mbbrutman]

Wikipedia is generally very shallow. You won't find detailed technical information on jumper settings for an IBM PC Revision 1 motherboard there. Or any of our XT-IDE stuff.

We need a Wiki. But the implementation of a wiki as executed by VBulletin is an abomination, which is why nobody wants to use it. It doesn't look or feel anything like a wiki.

I'd like to get real wiki software. But unlike the first attempt, it can't be open registration. We should just bite the bullet and hand register people to allow edits, keeping the same name on the wiki as on the forum. Initially that will be a lot of work but after that it should be a reasonable workload. That is going to be easier than trying to clean the spam up out of the wiki, which was the problem we had with the first wiki that was not linked to VBulletin.

 

[smp]

Wow, I really like what Mike is suggesting.

smp

 

[Trixter]

Mike's suggestion seconded. We absolutely need a wiki but we need to be running actual wiki software. For maximum familiarity -- which will lead to more contributions -- the usual choice is MediaWiki (which is of course free).

 

[Blinkenlightz]

I'd like to get real wiki software. But unlike the first attempt, it can't be open registration. We should just bite the bullet and hand register people to allow edits, keeping the same name on the wiki as on the forum.

Agreed!

I would add that as I get back into this hobby, I'm finding that a lot of online resources and references that had existed for years are disappearing. The community wikis, in my opinion, would be a great way to preserve knowledge. Initially it may have seemed redundant since so much of the information that would be pertinent there could easily be found elsewhere - but that may not be the case forever.

We used to say "The internet never forgets"..... I'm not so sure about that now.

 

[PeterNC]

+1 Mike.

 

[SomeGuy]

I can think of plenty of good uses for a Wiki here. But from my perspective there is kind of a catch 22 going on, I haven't ever touched the current Wiki because almost no one else here seems to, or even mentions it. If it were to reach a certain sort of critical mass, it would likely take off. It very well might just be the VBulletin version, as mentioned, that is preventing that "critical mass".

 

[Great Hierophant]

I think the consensus is that many members like the idea of a Vintage Computer Wiki, no one likes the forum-style implementation, and more people would get on board and contribute with a traditional style wiki.

Of course the tough bit is migrating over the existing wiki content.

 

[Compgeke]

The problem I have with the wiki here is it's really forum style and not quite as easy to navigate or find stuff in as something like Mediawiki is.

Another issue is a lack of emphasis on it as no one really adds anything to it, it's just kind of there.

 

[Ole Juul]

I'm with Mike - we need to keep the detailed vintage information available. Much of it is very difficult to find, if it is even available anywhere. Whatever the software chosen (simple is good!), hand registration is a good idea. It solves a lot of problems and doesn't create any.

 

[billdeg]

I get more useful info searching the forums than the wiki.

 

[tingo]

Mike's suggestion seconded. We absolutely need a wiki but we need to be running actual wiki software. For maximum familiarity -- which will lead to more contributions -- the usual choice is MediaWiki (which is of course free).

Yes; I second (or third, ow whatever) this suggestion. When we changed wiki software I tried quite hard to get used to the new one, unfortunately I only got frustrated. Too used to MediaWiki I guess.
FWIW, somebody has made a MediaWiki Extension for integration with VBulletin users: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VBulletin/Users_Integration
It's quite old, but it shows that this integration is possible.

 

[wrm]

I'm also in the camp of "there's a WIKI???"

BUT I think a WIKI is a very good thing to have. It's better than sticky threads and can be edited etc. But it depends on members to put the DIP switch settings for the original IBM PC or whatever on there. Critical mass, as some guy said.

I'm currently going through all the stuff I have, scanning and posting to my website in the hope that it would be archived somewhere somewhen. Jumper setting leaflets that came with obscure multi-IO ISA cards, that kind of thing. I don't have the space to keep the paper, and even if I did, no way to find the relevant bit of paper if I were to ever need it, and even if I could, I'm not the one who will be needing it.

But I fear Google isn't as good as it used to be, when it comes to this sort of stuff. I have a Ten Tec Argonaut 505 manual I downloaded a few years ago, here on my work PC. But I was home. Think I could find it? (And yes, it is now up on my web page, if not quite accessible yet).

I've played with DocuWiki a bit and it works but it's a bit of a toy. What's good about it though is that the information is stored as text in directories, not in a database -- which is clumsy but does not rely on any special code to be accessible -- you can print it on acid free paper and seal it in a container, if that's the kind of thing that concerns you.

Anywayz.

 

[barythrin]

Can't the wiki auth be tied to the forum login? If so I think it'd be pretty friendly and any member can make modifications still. I've found it a few times but didn't have anything to add and found it a bit lacking but a great idea. Combine that with how common and quickly these forums turn up in google searches and it'd probably be a pretty nice goto site or mirroring of other site data out there (with permission) .. (thinking of modem7's site).

 

[billdeg]

what is in the wiki that is not already on the web someplace else? I could be wrong, but aren't we just re-printing info that it already out there? If I am wrong, please illustrate how. I don't personally care either way if there is a WIKI....If it makes people happy and provides a service AND it's maintained then why not?