[Kiwiclx]

Wiki!

Just yesterday I was looking up information on BeyerDynamic 770s and apparents there are 4+ versions of it. I was surfing around treads for while to get information on the different ohms and which vendors sold each version.

Something like this could have been given great justice with a Wiki.

 

[michaelconnor]

So, if there is significant interest in doing this, what's the next step?

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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....

Wikipedia is an incredibly trust-worthy information database! They only allow additions to articles that can be proved by another soruce of some sort. Believe me - I've tested this myself. If you put ******** information into a wiki, it WILL be deleted by one of the mods unless you can prove it with a real source. In which case, if it's not a popular belief, it is tagged as an experimental/obscure/questionable bit of information.

I'm really surprised that you could say this! Do you think the creators of wikipedia were not aware of the things open source can do? They've done an ingenius thing of keeping the freedom and wealth of knowledge open source allows, while also weeding out the bad things!

 

[binkgle]

i think a wiki would be a fabulous thing for head-fi. lists and descriptions of all headphones (at least all headphones that we consider worth discussing here/some real shutdowns of bose triports

), amps, sources, etc. would be so useful.

for something like burn-in you say what it is and what it theoretically does. then you put in a note saying that the existence of burn-in is debatable and unproven. no one could denounce such a neutrally positioned entry as this.

 

[Snake]

Having a Wiki-style reference would be a very nice idea - although, by the completion of and use of it, general forum chit-chat traffic will probably end up decreasing as newbies get their fill of info instead of asking.

This will be "bad for business" as forum hits decrease and therefore ad hit decrease.

Anyway a Wiki sounds good...as long as you DON'T use the Wiki interface!! I am actually going to speak out - quite verbally - as the only guy on the Internet with the ba&!s to say the Wiki GUI SUCKS! It works very well if you know, and can ask for, precisely what you want. If you are just browsing, get the spelling wrong or even just enter part of a reference - Wiki leads you to the completely wrong spot. There is no near miss ability to the search engine, keeping track of all aspects of an article is way too difficult and hard to track and if the information flow is not 'linear' you're in for a tough ride.

I've hit a number of personal websites for tech currently using the Wiki GUI model. When trying to discover information you don't yet know they suck so bad I can't even describe it. When you know a bit they are helpful. When you are trying to line up factors of A-B-C their non-linear approach to informational display completely hinders the operation.

So, "Wiki", yes. WikiFi? No!

 

[michaelconnor]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'GUI.' Are you referring to the standard MediaWiki page layout? or perhaps the typical information architecture in wikipedia? or the quality of the integrated search engine?
/curious

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake If you are just browsing, get the spelling wrong or even just enter part of a reference - Wiki leads you to the completely wrong spot.

Well if you spell something wrong....

That's actually part of the reason I use google to search wikipedia ("wikipedia blah" usually works out). I'll get google's spelling correction and results sorted based on their algorithms. Plus sometimes I get relevant sites outside of wikipedia.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by devwild Well if you spell something wrong.... That's actually part of the reason I use google to search wikipedia ("wikipedia blah" usually works out). I'll get google's spelling correction and results sorted based on their algorithms. Plus sometimes I get relevant sites outside of wikipedia.

But that's what I mean, in response to both yours and the previous question. You end up having to use a search engine...to search a search engine. Just because the Wiki engine has no "human interface" factors built into it, as Google's does.

For an online "encyclopedia" that's just poor design. You come for information but the site has no ability to cross-reference that information based upon relevance. Only direct hits. Even spelling does not get you where you want to go.

Enter in "South Street" and you get one answer, and you are taken directly to their entry for "South Street". What about "South Street Seaport"? What about other famous South Streets? What about references to South Street throughout history, any events or such?

Nope. One article, taken directly there - no choice.

And the GUI web interface is not much better, the "MediaWiki" as michaelconnor wrote. If you are in the article clicking on "history" brings you somewhere. If you are in "Discussion" clicking history brings you...somewhere else. If you want to leave feedback you must first click "Discussion", which does not match the FAQ location-told entry of "Talk", then click "Edit this page" - which is counter-intuitive because you don't want to edit the "Talk", you want to "talk" yourself.

The entire interface experience is counter-intuitive to the typical human operating process. It is designed to make computer-friendly databases of both article and "forum" entries, but as an encyclopedia it's first methodology should be to make the information easy for humans to access, not the computers.

That, along with Wiki information's poor confirmation / accreditation (anyone can edit, but everyone is expect to in order to have the information in the first place (but people come to learn first, not to share) and articles can be completely wrong without proof (see: The Register's Wiki complaints)) and the entire Wiki prototype is within question (again, as The Register constantly notes)

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake But that's what I mean, in response to both yours and the previous question. You end up having to use a search engine...to search a search engine. Just because the Wiki engine has no "human interface" factors built into it, as Google's does.

As michaelconnor was hinting at, there are many many wiki frameworks out there, mediawiki being only one, and not necessarily the best. That would be up to whoever spearheaded the project. Also, you can always insert a google search onto a page, customize wiki source to meet the needs of the project (for example tying logins directly to head-fi would be nice), etc.

For now the question put forth by the thread is "yay or nay?". The nitpicky stuff would be worked out in time.

Edit: in regards to my login comment, I know that would have to mean the wiki was hosted on head-fi's servers. I feel that if this project were to succeed it would need to be manged by an existing head-fi admin or someone Jude trusted as a new admin to manage it on the head-fi servers. This would also maintain ad revenue for head-fi.

 

[michaelconnor]

snake,
I'll agree that search function in Wikipedia is far from perfect, although the newer disambiguation pages do make things a bit better. It's important to make the distinction, however, between Wikipedia and other wikis. Most independent wikis have a main page that links to all the major content. For example, I recently put together XPC Wiki for the shuttle user community. Almost everything is sitting right behind the main page, so it's difficult to really get lost inside, and there shouldn't really be a need to use the search function at all.

The Register has been outspoken against Wikipedia since its inception. I don't really understand why they feel so strongly about it. If publishers don't fact-check the books they print, shouldn't the Register be criticizing books just as much? At least Wikipedia allows for some degree of accountability. Nobody claims that the Wikipedia model is perfect. It's a massive social experiment, and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Kiwiclx]

I still say a Wiki would be quite useful. Where is the harm in giving it a try?

Speaking of which... where's the support? Where'd you run off you to, michaelconnor, Edwood, kwkarth, iq160plus, Trippytiger?

 

[Welly Wu]

(

 

[Carl]

A wiki with a breaf stub for every headphone in existance that was searchable by brand, price range, type, etc would be invaluable to less experienced buyers looking for their next fix.

It wouldn't tell them what to buy, it would help narrow down their search so they can ask more focused questions, making everyones life easier.

Its the next big fronteer.

 

[michaelconnor]

Still here Kiwiclx, I think the thread just got pushed back by all the polls.

I think Carl's idea sounds great. Giving newcomers a solid primer on Head-Fi and all the equipment would really help in attracting people to this hobby. I'm sure a lot of visitors are initially intimidated by all the esoteric language used around here. I know I spent about a solid month lurking around the boards until I felt educated enough to make my first purchase.

 

[michaelconnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu 1. Would the administrators or moderators allow for it?

I PM'd Jude the other day for his opinion on all this, but no reply as of yet.

Quote:

2. How would additional revenue be funded for such a project so as not to add additional financial burden upon Jude's enormous existing obligations?

I think that's the big issue. I don't know what the current advertising agreements are for Head-Fi, and I'm not sure if/how the Ads could be integrated into a wiki.

Quote:

3. Would a Head-Fi Wiki essentially encompass multiple member reviews of specific products within our niche or would it be a landmark whereby it would provide a gloss of the headphone high fidelity community? Can it be designed to handle both parameters?

Since it's a wiki, it should simply evolve to fit the most useful purpose or format. Plus, it's easy to experiment with content formats in the beginning.

Quote:

4. Finally, how popular would the Head-Fi Wiki be both among Head-Fi members and to outsiders? Will underwriting such a project pay off in terms of increasing site traffic and expanding the popularity of headphones and headphone amplifiers to the general populace?

I think that would be the big picture objective. There shouldn't be any real costs aside from hosting, however we really need to talk to Jude before this can move further along. Does anyone know a good way to contact him?