[michaelconnor]

Has anyone considered building a Wiki for Head-Fi?

I've been a member of several online groups that have benefitted greatly from integrating a wiki into their forum site. If a lot of people contribute, this could cut down on the number of noob questions and misinformation in the forums. Personally, I think it would be great just to have a summary with pics of each model of headphone and other hardware that gets discussed a lot on the boards.

Would you guys be interested in a project like this? It wouldn't take much to set up, and everyone could contribute.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Edwood]

I'm all in favor of it.

It's just that we'll be saying "Use the Wiki!!!"

Instead of "Use the search!"

-Ed

 

[familyman]

how do we summon this "Wiki" you speak of? Big fires? Sacrifice? Candles? Peanut butter? Ed's left sock?

TELL ME MORE!

 

[pank2002]

Wikis are on of the true wonders of the ‘net ... besides Hydrogenaudio has one. We shouldn’t stand behind them!

 

[michaelconnor]

To start one, you just need install some Wiki software on the server. Speaking of which, who runs Head-Fi anyway?

 

[Kiwiclx]

I agree. This would be an awesome idea.

I have a dedicated server or two in minimal use. Then again, we'll leave the decision-making ultimately to Jude.

Searching is just too inefficient. Down with searching, up with Wiki!

 

[Kiwiclx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelconnor To start one, you just need install some Wiki software on the server. Speaking of which, who runs Head-Fi anyway?

"Da Man" Jude.

 

[mjg]

don't want to be a hater but..

i hate the word wiki, i hate wikipedia, and i hate how everyone and their mother thinks they are a genius on any topic after browsing any sort of wiki (and or participiating in it) as great as they are in propegating a breadth volume of information, they are easily capable of propegating a load of bad information (and spreading it at a horrible rate no less). They shouldn't even be considered a reliable source of information.


Sorry for the rant, it's partially inspired by this annoying teacher i have who is forcing us to work in wiki's for a wack writing requirement to graduate....

 

[michaelconnor]

mjg,
agreed, there always remains the potential for abuse.

While I'm not too partial on the name 'wiki' either, their use as a collaborative tool cannot be overstated. This last year, I've composed several reports and projects with people around the world without having to send as much as an email.

Also, a recent study found that in a random sample of articles, Wikipedia had about the same number of errors per page as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Add that to recent admissions that book publishers don't do any fact-checking at all, and our friendly local libraries suddenly lose their facade as the last great bastion of truth. Anyway, the important thing to remember is that Wikis are best when used as a resource, not as a source.

 

[Naga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjg Sorry for the rant, it's partially inspired by this annoying teacher i have who is forcing us to work in wiki's for a wack writing requirement to graduate....

mine warned us several times against using it for essays

 

[iSleipnir]

While Wikipedia is not good for indepth (or entire accurate) information it is good for a general overview of many topics, including obscure or hard to find bits of knowledge. Also they can often point you in the direction of more reliable sources on the net or other sites with more focused information.

That said, I think a wikipedia article for head-fi would do great at just what was the suggested use for it: answering frequently asked questions and providing a shallow basic knowledge of our hobbie and passion.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by familyman how do we summon this "Wiki" you speak of? Big fires? Sacrifice? Candles? Peanut butter? Ed's left sock? TELL ME MORE!

I will volunteer the sacrifice of my left sock for the Wiki.

Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...W iki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wi ki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wik i...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki ...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki. ..Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki.. .Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki... Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...W iki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wi ki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wik i...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki ...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki. ..Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki.. .Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki... Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...W iki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wi ki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wik i...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki ...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki. ..Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki.. .Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki... Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...W iki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wiki...Wi ki...Wiki...

-Ed

 

[Kiwiclx]

You get "Kiwi" if you rearrange the letters.

I'm extra down with it.

This thread needs MORE RIOT.

 

[fewtch]

Personally I don't think it's needed, as (A) the search function is *not* that inefficient, and (B) there's already a huge wealth of information to be found here... why duplicate it elsewhere merely to benefit the lazy?

I'm not even sure it would be used much... on a scientific/technical forum like Hydrogenaudio it's great, but here people will probably just say "what's a wiki?"

 

[rsabo]

I often find that the results from a search are inefficient, because of two reasons:

1) misleading/confusing/unclear titles
2) lots of extra comments/useless info to sort through. Yeah, I know about "Search this thread", but why do I need to enter a search twice?


I vote wiki!