F1 Technical Wiki?

[machin]

People can 'steal' the info off the forum if they were that way inclined... It would just take then a while to go through all the posts!

If it were to work it would have to require little/no 'admin' otherwise that becomes the bottleneck... A wiki is administered by its contributors rather than a dedicated team...

[Giblet]

I misinterpreted what was being proposed. I thought we were talking about converting the existing car database into a wiki which I didn't think was good, but as it's own entity I think it's a really good idea!

Wiki by definition is a user changeable database with the force of the masses and section mods keeping everything in line, and that was my initial resistance for the sites already extensive information deposits.

[andrew]

Sounds like a good idea but my main concern is that there are some users that think their opinion is stone cold fact, when in fact they are wrong.

Then there is the problem of F1 Tech user A posting an item on, say, DRS. Then F1 Tech user B thinks they spot a mistake and then change it. Then user A comes back and changes the content back to the original, then user B remakes their change etc etc.

Am I seeing non-existant problems here? How would this be avoided?

[SiLo]

A simple PM to the person that wrote the original?

[Just_a_fan]

I quite like the idea of this. It needs to be correctly referenced though - if someone writes a section they can't just say "X is better than Y" without some reference to corroborating information.

Look at some Wikipedia articles and the list of references is as long as the article itself.

I assume the idea is that it would be a parallel site/sub area of the current site. I would suggest people look at http://www.cfd-online.com/ for an example of what I mean. That site does a very good job of this sort of wiki project.

[Maidel]

Then there is the problem of F1 Tech user A posting an item on, say, DRS. Then F1 Tech user B thinks they spot a mistake and then change it. Then user A comes back and changes the content back to the original, then user B remakes their change etc etc.

Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Have a look at any popular pages discussion and you will see no end of arguement over just that.

The way wikipedia gets around it is by requiring unarguable referances for anything remotely contentious. and if you can find evidence for both, then both can be included.

[andrew]

Then there is the problem of F1 Tech user A posting an item on, say, DRS. Then F1 Tech user B thinks they spot a mistake and then change it. Then user A comes back and changes the content back to the original, then user B remakes their change etc etc.

Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Have a look at any popular pages discussion and you will see no end of arguement over just that.

The way wikipedia gets around it is by requiring unarguable referances for anything remotely contentious. and if you can find evidence for both, then both can be included.

I know this to be the huge downfall of Wikipedia - that's why I queried it. Referencing is fine as long as the refences can be viewed by everyone and are reliable.

A simple PM to the person that wrote the original?

I think with most users that would work or at the very least open reasoned discussion to find the correct answer.

[Maidel]

I know this to be the huge downfall of Wikipedia - that's why I queried it. Referencing is fine as long as the refences can be viewed by everyone and are reliable.

This is something that would be relatively easy for old technical data, but near impossible for current stuff, especially as some of the teams dont even know for sure how other teams sort out some technical issues (eg - red bulls front wing!)

[Giblet]

Keep in mind right now that anyone can submit an article to Tomba and get credited. Then it becomes searchable on the site and appears quite high in the google results.

Bar555 does it all the time.

[Ciro Pabón]

A Wiki!

Good idea. Cheap to maintain, isn't it? Servers are free these days.

Besides, surely mods need to work more. Go, Giblet! Days have 24 hours anyway, and you sleep too much.

I already have an idea for an article: "Nazi and gay F1 drivers: their relationship with nuclear power, national independence movements and flexible wings". Kind of typical for an encyclopedia. After all, it's not like people come here to debate to death moot points, isn't it?

[andrew]

If every article is submitted for review prior to posting then that would be an idea.

[Maidel]

Problem with that is that then mods have to read everything and then articles could remain unpublished for days and days.

If a mod then has to read every correction made... well it becomes a full time job, rather than a mods work.

[andrew]

Yeah, I thought of that, but I think there needs to be some sort of (for want of a better phrase) regulatory body.

[bot6]

I think any new article, and any modification to an existing article, needs to be validated by a moderator. That will make sure there is no "going back and forth" like mentioned earlier.

Using the current article submission system could also be done, but doing it collaboratively then by submitting the articles in the forum for review and eventually editing before publication. This way, publication might take a while, but the info would already be available in the forum and fairly easy to find.

Another good thing might be to keep this about pure description of technical devices for now (no pilot or team talk), as that is easier information to validate. Then we can extend the "allowed" subjects gradually if everything works well.

There's lots of ways to do this.

[Maidel]

Yeah, I thought of that, but I think there needs to be some sort of (for want of a better phrase) regulatory body.

Isn't it better to assume that the 'people' are the regulatory body and only intervene on articles that get flagged up due to excessive modifications?