I suggest you ...

Changing the adoption process.

This idea could be either of the following and needs to be thought out more:
1) Allow users to apply to get update permissions.
2) Pages come up for adoption if not up to date (as voted on by the community -- this would require adding a way to vote whether or not a page is sufficiently up to date).

NOTE: While this idea could be termed "wiki" it does NOT imply open editing for all pages.

23 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    MattAdminMatt (SummitPost Webmaster, SummitPost.org) shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →

    20 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • VisentinVisentin commented  · 

        What's the point to do such a system if a manual action from elves is still requested ? That's what they currently do.
        The idea would be to automate the process (or possibly involve non-elves members in the process of validation, to relieve the elves).
        Since algorithms like "people who climb the same stuff as you" or "mountains your friends are climbing" were developed, why not making profit of these mathematic rules to determine if a member has enough "background" on the area to automatically adopt an outdated mountain ? (by outdated I mean not changed since a defined amount of time and inactive author since a defined amount of time)
        This would be a little step forward.

      • mrchad9mrchad9 commented  · 

        Consensus options... if anything is done... seem to be:

        1. Allow members to flag a page somehow as being outdated, but it has no effect other than as a sort of notification.
        2. Develop a more automated way for members to request adoption, but do not automate the actual handover. To actually adopt the page, the owner must still do the handover or an elf can assist if the owner is unresponsive.

      • MattAdminMatt (SummitPost Webmaster, SummitPost.org) commented  · 

        As Visentin stately bluntly, no one has mentioned the idea of making SP a full wiki and that's not being considered.

        This discussion has evolved into two separate ideas:
        1) Allowing pages to become eligible for adoption more easily
        2) Allowing for some small section of each page to be added to/edited by all users.

        These will be separated here on UserVoice.

        http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/to-wiki-or-not-to-wiki-t64277.html

      • VisentinVisentin commented  · 

        Every person should read the entire topic before posting a review. No one said SP would turn into a full wiki. You can't provide a serious feedback basing on "rumors" !

      • Adam WalkerAdam Walker commented  · 

        Lately I have heard many rumors about a coming wiki addition to SP. I would like to comment on that and hear from others.

        In the business world, there's an important idea that if you have a successful model, don't change it. SummitPost is the best mountaineering resource in the world for a reason. It has a huge following and thousands of active users. Change can be good, but I fear that structural change might take us in the wrong direction, away from what has brought us success. Many of the recent changes are excellent and I applaud the folks who have put work into those projects. Their dedication is honorable.

        I am completely against this wiki idea. This is a structural change, whether it affects a section or the entire page. The additions/corrections section works fine. If you want, display that at the bottom of the page, below the images, so it's more visible. This is a move in the wrong direction. It could lead to future flippant structural changes. Why experiment with the structural supports on a building if the building is standing strong? This is a very effective way to estrange current users, causing active contributors to leave the site. It's undermining to the people who have put countless hours into presenting the best information available at the time. When someone posts additions/corrections to one of my pages, I verify the information and then incorporate that into the page. If my submissions all of a sudden include a wiki without my consent, I may choose to no longer submit content.

        What is the real issue here? Old pages that are in need of renovation? Perhaps when a page has a low enough score or it's owner has been inactive for a few years, it could be transferred automatically to the adoption folder. Perhaps adoption pages should be entirely wiki until they are adopted by a new owner. What do you think about that?

        -gimpilator

      • VisentinVisentin commented  · 

        Since I began following this thread my feeling is that no step forward has been done.
        We have on one side people who try to raise the problem that some pages whose owners are inactive since long, should be available for adoption or any other regulated form of update (yes, both are related), and beyond the scope of responsibilities of the too busy elves.
        On the other side, some people like Sarah feeling concerned (with good reasons) about the integrity of their work, the fear of disturbers, and so on and so on.
        In short, people who have a vision of SP as a social tool where a page is the fruit of everyone's contribution, on the other side people with a more personal and "author" vision of their work. Both are right I think.

        But no one is really trying to push the topic forward: so far lots of complaints and concerns, but very little proposed solutions ! (by solutions I mean concrete rules that can be applied as pure algorithms and determine if yes or no a person can update a page).
        It was not discussed for example :
        - which types of pages would need in priority would need to be updateable beyond the current system of ownership/rights ?
        - which criterias should we take into account ?
        - what form of update ?
        All of these points are in my opinion essential.
        Eric

      • RedwicRedwic commented  · 

        BTW- This thread seems to have veered from the original suggestion (page adoptions) to Wiki-only. Or perhaps they are related?

      • RedwicRedwic commented  · 

        I think what you are suggesting is like opening Pandora's Box.
        The Wiki idea would ultimately create a special section not only for updaters, but also nitpickers, troublemakers, and non-detailed people. It is opening a way to mess with a page without needing to change the original author's information. Some people might use the Wiki to enter information that is incorrect, misleading, or purely opinion-based rather than fact-based. Many times that is what happens with Wiki stuff. You are just assuming people will only enter accurate, critical updates. I believe that people who are in favor of the Wiki idea tend to only be looking through the good prism of updating, rather than the bad side-effects of that feature. This is SummitPost, not WikiPost.

        I cannot speak for Sarah or anyone else, but if one of my page contributions really needs to be updated then the person who wants the update just needs to go to the "Comment" or "Additions & Corrections" sections and/or contact me directly, and that will start the ball rolling. I take a lot of pride in making contributions to SummitPost, and I want information that I provide to be accurate and usable as a resource, so I make a concerted effort to respond to comments within a generally short timeframe. To that regard, I do not want to see other people's possibly incorrect, unnecessary, or misleading updates, gripes, nitpicks, and nonsensical stuff on the front pages of my contributions.

        What is the harm in the current setup, where a person just needs to open the "Comments" and "Additions & Corrections" sections? And then print them out (if needed or desired)? That does not seem too difficult.

        Some people have done a lousy job with page information. I totally understand that. But isn't that why page adoption is possible, and isn't that why we have "Comments" and "Additions & Corrections" sections? Why is the current setup really so bad? Why is a Wiki necessary on SummitPost?

        Anyway, that's my two cents. Thank you for listening (i.e. reading).

      • mrchad9mrchad9 commented  · 

        The elves already do this Redwic (transfer pages as needed). It's not a full time or time consuming job.

        Can you (or Sarah or anyone) please describe exactly what would be the issue with users being able to edit a section at the very end with current conditions or updates? No one is taking about giving the masses access to the page content itself.

        The section mentioned could perhaps be restricted so it is text only, no images. Basically this moves the corrections you mention so everything is more noticible and can be printed out... Not possible now.

      • RedwicRedwic commented  · 

        In addition to my last comment, many SP pages have "Comments" and "Additions & Corrections" sections. People should be checking those before using a page as a reference. So SP already has a solution in place! They are like Wikis, but without interfering with the page contribution, itself.

        Here is another idea:
        Using the step-by-step process I mentioned in my previous post, perhaps SummitPost can appoint special "Page Elves" who only deal with adoption requests for pages. These "Page Elves" would not necessarily be the same as the SP Admin Elves. The "Page Elves" can look at things on a more case-by-case basis, verifying that a specific page needs *critical* updates/improvements, proper attempts have been made to contact the original page contributor(s) to make changes, and decide whether or not giving the concerned SP user editing or adminstrator rights is justified for the page.

        Just a thought.

      • RedwicRedwic commented  · 

        I agree with Sarah Simon regarding the "Wiki" idea. It's a terrible idea(!!!), especially for those on SummitPost who contribute regularly or who are more detailed-oriented than most. One of the things that really makes SummitPost great is the individual creativity and control for each page author. Plus, some people are just plain neurotic, or negative, or buttheads trying to stir the pot & ruin things for others.

        You know how to find a page that desperately needs help?
        STEP 1: Find pages with poor vote/page scores.
        STEP 2: If, for whatever reason, the page score is semi-decent to decent, notify the page author via e-mail and PM.
        STEP 3: If the page author does not respond within a certain amount of time (such as one month), contact the Elves to ask about either adopting the page or receiving editing privileges (or to wait longer).

        Seems pretty simple to me. But the "Wiki" idea is a bad option.

      • panhandletrailspanhandletrails commented  · 

        I can understand Sarah Simon's concern on this issue. For those SP members who put as much into their pages as she does, it could be unsettling to think what someone else might do to a carefully crafted page. After all, we would not be having this forum if there were not any problems with what some members do, or do not, put on their pages.

        On the other hand, it is a legitmate concern in regards to pages in need of updates, but where the owners seem to be unaware or absent. We all know how an avalanche, a washout, a forest fire, or other problems could require updates for the benefit of all who come to SP for information. There is more, but you get the idea...

        What system do we come up with to balance out the desire of conscientious SP contributors for the integrity of their pages, yet allow for some much-needed work on deficient pages? No system is perfect, but when the finished work is done, all serious concerns should be addressed.

      • VisentinVisentin commented  · 

        The wiki should be optional for articles, unavailable for trip reports, but automatic for mountains and areas. However modifying should not be available to everyone. There are some rules to be defined : perhaps a person who has signed the summit log and climbed several mountains around.
        One other "democratic" idea could be as follows :
        Allow anyone to apply to a page, when the owner has been inactive for more than a month. Elves or a larger group of people with significant experience of SP (power limit or anything) can access a sort of board where pending applications can be validated. At least two different people validate the candidature and the guest has access to the page.

      • Sarah SimonSarah Simon commented  · 

        The wiki feature needs to be optional. I am happy with maintaining my own pages. Others can send updates via additions and corrections if needed. I do not want to be forced to offer my pages Wiki style.

      • VisentinVisentin commented  · 

        By the way who told about wiki pages ?

      • mrchad9mrchad9 commented  · 

        For these anonymous people who don't like wiki pages... Do you have a specific objection to not having a wiki section on a page, even if all the current sections remain in complete owner control? Be specific about the issue or concern.

      • Anonymous commented  · 

        I do not like the wiki option though.

      • VisentinVisentin commented  · 

        As we spoke about intellectual property regarding pictures, I think the same should be considered also for written content. We should be aware that some users consider their pages like their property and wont tolerate access by others..
        I suggest that :
        - some type of pages are automatically wiki-able, like peaks, regions, routes
        - some type of pages (trip reports) are not editable by any other persons except the ones the author possibly defined as co-editors
        - some types of pages (articles) can be parametrized either as open or closed, depending on their type. Example: article relating a story -> closed, article related to weather or something that might be subject to changes -> open
        To meditate...

      • MattAdminMatt (SummitPost Webmaster, SummitPost.org) commented  · 

        Chad, I agree that this is quite high priority and might be the next thing that needs addressing after the submission/editing interface.

        The other two ideas haven't been mentioned previously (that I know of) because I was brainstorming alone when I came up with them.

      • mrchad9mrchad9 commented  · 

        Matt I have some thoughts on this. I think something should be done here this winter... After a new submission mechanism. Probably along the lines of pages being part wiki, but mostly user owner as currently.

        The other two ideas here are also very interesting and I think merit consideration. First I'd heard of them.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base