More Wiki Musings

[go_gentle]

Wait, you actually want me to make my crazy ideas happen? (I had a thought today - the ideal finished product I have in mind is not that far off the HP Lexicon in content. But if I get as out of hand as the Lexicon has been in recent months, someone please take my internets away. (Although I suspect that publishing this hypothetical wiki - if one could transform it to book format - would be much less legally problematic than publishing the Lexicon. But I digress.))

Someone once told me that there are two types of people when it comes to projects. One prefers to start and figure out the details later, one wants to get all the details straight from the get-go. Clearly, I am the latter.

Okay, disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing. That doesn't mean I'm not going to try to make it happen - I'm well familiar with blind fumbling in the dark, but if you do know something, feel free to chime in. Most of this is based on research and not actual experience. Also, it's mostly me thinking out loud, so please tell me where my thinking is going wrong. This got more epic than I expected - feel free to comment on as much or as little as you want.


Technical Details

Format

MediaWiki is what runs wikipedia (also the fan history wiki, the F_W wiki, etc.) I think its popularity means more people are going to be familiar with how to edit it, etc. I know I found editing MediaWiki sites very easy to learn, but I'm not sure if that's universally true. I have a deep hatred of WYSIWYG editing - I prefer to stay closer to the code, which is one reason I like the way MediaWiki sites are edited. Will that be off-putting for newcomers to wikis?

My personal preference would be to use a wiki that runs MediaWiki.

Hosting

Someone else

There are sites that are dedicated to hosting wikis (called 'wiki farms'), often for free or supported by ads. A list can be found here. A comparison of features is here.

Browsing through and looking at offered features, I like wikilot, wiki-site, scribblewiki. (ETA: Wikispace has been pointed out in comments, and I'm adding it to the list of options worth considering.) Maybe wikia. I have no experience with any of these sites, and I don't know how long they've been around/will stay around. Thoughts?

Commerical Hosting

Wikipedia is about 3GBs, according to LifeHacker. Presumably, anything we build would be orders of magnitude smaller than that, which I think is a very workable size with just about any commercial webhosting. With the amount of statistics put out by the FanHistory wiki people, I should be able to find details on size/traffic, but two minutes on google doesn't turn anything up.

The choice of commercial hosting would probably mean we'd have to install MediaWiki (or another wiki software) ourselves. The instructions looks doable, but not trivial, but I have no experience to base this on.

DreamHost provides instructions on how to install MediaWiki on a site hosted with them. A number of other hosting sites advertise one-click installation of a wiki, although not all of them are MediaWiki.

I am not familiar with the pros and cons of various hosting services, and I don't know where to start looking. I also don't know if I have missed an option.

My thoughts are that at this point, free hosting on a wikifarm is preferable over the other option. My only concern is reliability/long term viability. Agree? Disagree?


Content

Things I Want:
1. Band Bios!
2. Band Member Bios!
3. Lyrics! (the principle is 'why the fuck not?')
4. Media Indices! (I suspect that hosting video/scans/whatever may be beyond at least the initial stages, but something like 'link to such and such interview on youtube, in which these things happen and the band touches on these topics' would be kind of neat.)
5. Tour dates!
6. Citations! Seriously. Citations are awesome.

Things I Don't Want:
1. Fic/Art/fanmade media. Just not the place for it.
2. History of fandom. First, this is an impossible topic; second, there are other places already working on it.
3. Wildly unsourced rumors.
4. Wank. Because, really, who does?

Yes? No?

I suspect that the wiki will require a small team of moderators (along with an owner) to ensure that pages remain reasonable. Some pages may also need to have editing privileges restricted, depending on vandalism.


Setup and Organization

Clearly, at startup we have huge backlogs of info that needs to be added. Suggestions for ways to make this as easy as possible for users? One way would be to have a small group of users create a massive amount of stubs, which then could be filled in later by the general public - sort of creating an outline for the eventual document.

I don't know how it would be best to organize the pages. I suspect this is something it would be nice to get mostly right from the beginning, because re-organization is always a pain in the ass. Suggestions?


Social Organization

Another thing I have no experience in! Things I am thinking about:

-Do we need an LJ comm?
-Should I post to BSM about this? Tangentially, feel free to pimp this to your flists/comms/wherever - I'd like as many opinions as possible so that the final product is as useful to as many people as possible.
-How should mods be chosen?
-How to avoid stepping on toes - what toes should I be worried about stepping on? bandfandom_ref? bandom_primers? Something I don't know about?


What am I forgetting? Any other thoughts or suggestions you have?

Comments

[magdalyna.livejournal.com]

This is a great start!

[fallingfortruth.livejournal.com]

Another worry is the wank that will inevitably crop up over interpretation, especially on member bios and any sort of 'X means Y' thing that isn't a direct quote. It's an interesting idea, I just can't see it possibly ending well. :/

[quettaser.livejournal.com]

Well, it shouldn't be more than anything besides direct quotes right? I mean, it's a canon wiki, so it should link to as many articles and interviews and archived blogs as possible.

And edit wars are pretty much unavoidable. You'd need some dedicated mods but every wiki needs that.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

I realize that it takes very little to start wank, but there are certain things that are facts - a statement like "In such and such article, TAI talks about their writing process" just really isn't open to interpretation. I was thinking that this wiki would be more of a directory to canon and less of analysis and meta (which is open to lots of differing views and interpretations).

Besides, I'd rather try to build it and have it go down in flames than give up over fear of wank, you know? Although I'm going to try to not provide too much fuel to the flames, so thanks for pointing out some things to avoid.

[xanphibian.livejournal.com]

I'm not helpful at all, I just think you're made of awesome.

♥♥♥

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Aww, thanks. (Although perhaps you should wait until there's some sort of viable product before declaring my awesomeness!) ♥

[xanphibian.livejournal.com]

Nah, I think you're pretty awesome always.

[quettaser.livejournal.com]

This is such an awesome idea! And one I was maybe trying to do with my big media post before I was just inundated with new material and not enough time to code it all.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Hey, if you don't mind, would you tell me about why it didn't work for you? If you don't want to, no problem, but I'd really like to know in advance what sort of problems I'm going to run into (hopefully so that I can avoid them!). Either here or by email is fine.

[impertinence.livejournal.com]

I think a free wiki might be the best way to go - getting money involved would give wankers legitimacy when they whined about people writing articles with biases, or whatever. I don't think an LJ comm is really needed, and might actually detract from the wiki itself - maybe you could make a central post for planning and just link it back on various comms?

The only toes I'd worry about are Fanhistory.com toes, and those...are not well-balanced toes. Put mildly.

Since it's your idea, I'd say you could choose mods as you saw fit.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

That's an excellent point about money, and as I'm playing more with the free tools available I'm liking them more and more. At least to start with, I'm probably going to go with one of them.

FanHistory, from what I've seen, documents the history of fandom primarily and only briefly the canon of those fandoms, so I wouldn't think there'd be too much overlap there (although I should probably at least consider the name thing - bandom vs. ebandom vs. Six Degrees of Pete Wentz vs. whatever else we are.)

[belladonnalin.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna get on board with imp here - wikispaces is a pretty painless thing to set up and it's free.

As for this: Will that be off-putting for newcomers to wikis?
Yeah, very. I've set up wikis for a couple of groups of people who aren't very familiar with wikis and editing and coding and they absolutely NEED the WYSIWYG format. Unfortunately, because I hate them, too.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

I didn't know about wikispaces, so thanks for the link - I've added it to the list.

Hmmm. That's good to know, and I'll be sure to keep it in mind in choosing a space.

[riadsala.livejournal.com]

This is an impressive undertaking! I'm not sure I have any useful contributions to add, but I'll give my encouragement wherever it's needed!

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[olivia-circe.livejournal.com]

I have nothing useful to add on the hosting/editing/kind of wiki front, but everything you are saying makes sense to me. The WYSIWYG editing thing might not be an issue if there are people and/or guidelines available to help the more coding-illiterate among us.

Content and Organization:

4. Media Indices!
Or, in my language, annotated bibliographies! Including videos, interviews, pictures, etc., yes? I am 100% behind annotated bibliographies. For that matter, everything you mention in terms of content sounds good to me, both the wants and not-wants. I would also add comprehensive timelines, which might be easier to assemble once we fill in everything else. Because what we're essentially trying to do here is create a canon encyclopedia, right?

I think the annotated bibliographies, the citations, and avoiding unsourced rumors all go together, and could potentially be handled by a team of citation-tracking and fact-checking mods who keep tabs on whether or not the information people submit is, in fact, substantiated, cited, and linked in the annotated bibliographies/indicies.

Probably starting out by creating a bunch of well-organized stubs and then letting people slowly fill in the information is the way to go. As people start filling in information, however, I imagine you'll needs mods checking their citations and checking their code - the researchers and the techs, if you will.

(The citation-checking process probably goes like this: x submits a bunch of tour dates without a citation, mod says "hey, x, do you have a citation for this information?" x says, "oh, whoops, here it is" or "I got it from here, where someone posted it but didn't cite it," in which case the mod gets to do detective work. If the dates can't be substantiated by the mod team and posters, they get taken off the wiki. Or something, I don't know, we'd have to work on the rules.)

I guess this is all a roundabout way of saying that, should it be deemed a good idea, I volunteer to be on the citation/fact-checking mod team. All the reference librarians in bandom should also be on this team. :)

Social Organization

Ideally nobody's toes get stepped on, because we are all working on it together! Um. Wishful thinking? Okay. But I don't know, I mean, I imagine the bandfandom_ref and bandom_primers people could potentially want to help out, since our shared goal is more canon for everyone. That's just me, though, and I know nothing about the politics.

I think an LJ comm might not be a bad idea, if only as a place to gather people who want to help out/submit information/talk about how this will work. Of course, doing that in your LJ is fun, too...

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

YES! I love basically everything you've said in this comment. Also, research librarians. So much love for reference librarians.

I really really like that process for dealing with citations - it looks like a good way to optimize getting as much info as possible while still making sure it's reliable. I also like the idea of researchers and techs to correct things like formatting and coding, to make the barrier to entry as low as possible for people who have info to contribute.

I am full of wishful thinking too. I just don't want to piss anyone off before the project even gets started. I suppose I should just email the mods of those comms and give them a heads-up/ask to advertise in their comms.

[olivia-circe.livejournal.com]

Reference librarians are hot, dude. :)

I was talking with sweetvalleyslut about this yesterday, and she said "Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?" and I think that's really the point. Obviously you don't want to piss anyone off, but honestly, we really do need some kind of comprehensive canon directory, and I can't imagine anyone not being on board with that somehow, you know? (Which is all basically to reiterate that you are awesome, and thanks again for doing this.)

My basic problem with wikis - wikipedia included - is that they aren't always well-cited, and consequently not always reliable. I mean, I guess that's the point, and my roommate the techie tells me that ideally wikis are supposed to eventually gather people who make it their business to track citations, but...I don't know, I'd just rather have those people in place to begin with. That's the point of mods in this situation, I think: to keep the entry threshold low and the ultimate quality high, right from the get-go.

Speaking of the get-go, though, how to organize the material? Searchable directory...categories...categorical structure...ahh, I have no idea. I think I used up my good ideas for the day. I will keep thinking, though, because I am so very much on board with this! :D

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Good point on the role of mods. I still like everything you're saying.

I have been thinking about organizing this all day. Any sort of organization system is not going to be at all trivial to set up. Grrr. Arrgh.

[olivia-circe.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I...yeah. I am looking forward to whatever you end up saying about it later tonight? Hah, sorry. It seems like it should be simple, and yet it really isn't. I'd be inclined to have BANDS at the top of some sort of ladder/umbrella structure, or possibly in the middle of one of those brainstorming webs from middle school, but I have no idea. Are the subcategories of BANDS, then, PEOPLE, TOUR DATES, MAJOR EVENTS, ALBUMS, LYRICS? We can always cross-list? Make it possibly to search by PEOPLE or TOURS? I bet this is one of those things it's easier to do with a whiteboard and a lot of diagrams.

Wow, that was totally useless. You still rock, though!

[janet-carter.livejournal.com]

I think this is a great idea, and the media indexing in particular would be an awesome resource.

Thoughts to consider - scope: what bands to include (although it's easy enough to start small and add more if there are volunteers interested in doing the work for them); how detailed bios can get (i.e., it's not that hard to find home addresses, info on non-famous girlfriends and siblings, etc., online) - stick with things that can be cited to interviews? Which, like quettaser said, should help keep the wank down.

Outlining with stubs sounds like a good idea. For organizing media, I'm not sure if it would be useful to break it down by date, or source, or something; or just have a big, searchable annotated bibliography?

Oh, and there's also bandom_timeline - the comm's not really active, but probably worth checking to see if they have more compiled/future plans?

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

As for scope, I had planned to include the handful of bands that are a major part of bandom (MCR, Panic, FOB, TAI, GCH, AAR, Cobra, and whichever I have surely forgotten), and for the rest, let people add them if they are willing to do the work.

There's a line between 'detailed bio' and 'creepy stalker information,' but I'm not sure where exactly that line falls. Sticking to things in interviews would be one way of drawing that line - I'll definitely think about that.

I don't know what the best way to organize media would be, especially working within the limitations of a wiki. Perhaps just go crazy with tags? Tag by source, by date, by topic discussed? I think it'd be useful to be able to find in one place, say, every time Gerard has talked about alcoholism. I'm going to have to think about this and what's doable in a wiki.

I didn't know about that comm - thanks for the link.

[fictionalfaerie.livejournal.com]

rainbowsyay is working on an extensive and incredibly in depth Ryland Blackinton primer- I'm sure I can convince her to turn it into an article as well, if you want. She's got a ton of info, with backing sites and such, on him.

And inawonderland is awesome at Lucent Dossier info, who connect up to quite a few bandom bands.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

That all sounds awesome. I'll keep those folks in mind when things start going up, or feel free to point them over here.

[mandy-croyance.livejournal.com]

sinuous_curve and I were actually discussing creating a bandom wiki late last year and we actually did some research ourselves but it never really got off the ground. I can see you've done your own research but if you want to IM me on AIM my s/n is LvCrync.

There are a lot of things outside of what you've mentioned that could seriously warrant their own pages too. Like, for example, entries on Albums. Side projects. The blogs that band members have maintained or currently maintain. Brief summaries on people like Brian and Dirty and Zach. Short descriptions of wives and girlfriends (as yes, they are relevant to bandom and fic whether or not everyone likes them, lol). Other business ventures (i.e. Clandestine).

There is just so, SO much content out there. I really can't wait!

[mandy-croyance.livejournal.com]

Just as an aside, I know there will probably be quite a bit of controversy over what type of content to include, but I think that anything that is widely known within fandom, relevant, and not too intrusive to the bandom members (i.e. no home addresses or phone numbers) should probably be cataloged. Basically anything you'd find on an average, detailed wikipedia entry. If that makes sense :D

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'd definitely want all that info. Thanks for reminding me.

If you don't mind telling me, I'd love to know why it didn't work for you guys, if there's any specific reason. The more pitfalls that can be avoided, the better, you know?

[mandy-croyance.livejournal.com]

Ahaha. We never really set one up. We had grand plans but it was one of those cases where life got in the way and both of us got distracted and eventually forgot about it. No pitfalls to speak of, lol.

We did have a little difficulty decided which wikifarm to use. Wikia stood out to us as a really clean, efficient site that already supports a number of similar fandom canon wikis (such as wookiepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) but we were a little intimidated by the fact that they reserve the rights to delete wikis that do not generate enough interest. We got pretty bogged down in that decision making process actually because there are so many factors that are key to creating something efficient on the scale this will be.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Okay, good to know. My thoughts about Wikia are almost identical to yours, so I'm still really ambivalent about them.

[warmingweather.livejournal.com]

This sounds awesome! I have nothing particularly helpful to add, but it would be a really great resource and as soon as it gets set up, I will definitely contribute. :)

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Yay!

[x--kes--x.livejournal.com]

This sounds like a really cool idea. I'm gonna stick around and see where you go with it if that's cool.

[x--kes--x.livejournal.com]

Also, you may want to think about how you might credit people. I mostly mean that a few members of fandom have put a lot of time and effort into creating their own sort of information databases, and those would be a goldmine to any wiki that was created. Unfortunately, people may get upset if information that they've painstakingly gathered shows up on the wiki with no mention of their name. It seems like it might be a delicate problem, because recognizing everyone that has added information to the wiki would be ridiculous, but some people should get that recognition for work above and beyond.

Just a thought.

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Oooh, that's an excellent point. I'm definitely going to have to think about how to handle that. Thanks for bringing it up.

And you're welcome to hang around as long as you'd like!

[turnyourankle.livejournal.com]

that's a really good idea. i'm one of those people who need to research as much as possible before diving into writing a band, so this would be really awesome.

(also, i might be able to help with the used because i'm in the process of primer-ing them and i'm such a stickler for details and footnotes it's actually turning into somewhat of a wiki article :|)

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

The Used! I always forget about them but I don't mean it, I swear. That sounds like an awesome resource that you're working on.

[phineasjones.livejournal.com]

i'm seriously loving this idea. in my dream world, this would include a canon timeline - like the lotrips one (http://versaphile.com/lrcanon/time/index.asp). not a schedule of past tours, but a timeline of all sorts of things - when did gerard get sober, when did ryan's dad die, where were they at the time, stuff like that. i know that's a lot to take on, it's jut my dream. :)

[go-gentle.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. I was never in lotrips, so I'd never seen that time line, and that is truly amazing. I would love to be able to create something that that's detailed.