Wiki to help the site maintenance

jocund

Post by jocund »

I think the wiki is a bad idea. Unless of course the submitter of the problem is inactive(2 weeks+).

It is not only the issue of the edits being "correct" but often people will change problems to the point where the original lesson is no longer there.

Or a problem intended to be for 30k might be "corrected" until it is dan strength.

I'm not worried about vandals, so much as the purpose of the problem.

Like in one of my problems, a 9k, 10k, and 30k all agreed that I must have messed up on the "yes" and no" buttons. A large portion of people correctly understood the problem. It was to understand if stones were in seki. They said that it was a seki(even though it wasn't) because white could make it a seki if he played. Had they control to edit, they'd have flipped around the yes and the no, actually making the problem incorrect. But they would have done it thinking they were helping.



{Posted by jocund}
kaf

Post by kaf »

I think, it should be up to the author to decide whether allow someone editing his problem or not.

{Posted by kaf}
jocund

Post by jocund »

[quote]
I think, it should be up to the author to decide whether allow someone editing his problem or not.
[/quote]

This is an EXCELLENT IDEA!!!

When submitting the problem make a box that says, "Allow Public Edit" or some such. Then the author can choose to maintain full control, or not, over the problem. Excellent, brilliant idea.

{Posted by jocund}
admin

Post by admin »

that's interesting. or how about this: people can submit proposed edits, and then the author or any moderator could accept them?

adum

{Posted by admin}
kaf

Post by kaf »

[quote]
that's interesting. or how about this: people can submit proposed edits, and then the author or any moderator could accept them?

adum
[/quote]

That would be much better!

{Posted by kaf}
LCZLAPINSKI

Post by LCZLAPINSKI »

[quote]
that's interesting. or how about this: people can submit proposed edits, and then the author or any moderator could accept them?

adum
[/quote]
1. I think a wiki type system which gives editing privileges to registered users or trusted registered users would be worth a try.
2. Part of the problem is that many of the authors are gone or do not make the edits.
3. A moderator may never see the problems that needs the edits or may not have the time to fix all the problems that need editing.
4. There is a need for more moderators or editors.
5. As Santa C. said, many problems could use more depth in the wrong variations to show weaker players why tne variations are wrong.
6. I would be willing to make edits for simpler problems and edits recommended by stronger players.
7. There are even problems which haven't been fixed in over a year.
Lawrence C.

{Posted by LCZLAPINSKI}
admin

Post by admin »

how about a digg like system where registered users could flag problems that have issues? moderators could then sort by the problems with the most flags.

adum

{Posted by admin}
LCZLAPINSKI

Post by LCZLAPINSKI »

That has the benefit of bringing it to a moderator's attention.
It doesn't help with easing the work load on the moderator's.
NOTE: A flagging system would help for chessproblems.com. There would also need to be a way of checking the flags as being completed.
There currently isn't a good way of flagging problems that need to be fixed there either.

{Posted by LCZLAPINSKI}
seku

Post by seku »

Rubilia has an interesting approach, I think. How easy or hard it is to create, maintain and edit problems probably has a big deal to do with whenever a visitor bothers doing so.

Putting comments into context of actual moves, suggesting sequences which alter the sgf but don't really show in the actual problem, sandbox play area where you can try out variations not in problem, etc.. Even if it weren't wiki, I think these things would be good.

If it was as easy to solve problems as it is to maintain them (with buggy applet), I doubt there would be very many visitors.

A lot of work, tho...

Overall, using wiki will probably correct more incorrectness, then cause incorrectness by ignorance or vandalism.

{Posted by seku}
santa c

taking another look with the new applet?

Post by santa c »

i wonder how http://senseis.xmp.net/?Eidogo%2FCollab will go...

the new gp applet, having partial diff marking implemented is possibly a step in this direction?

perahps would require creating an identical saperate tree with # of visits on a node so that nobody corrupts them (special reset ability kept (locked), as sometimes they make no sense after a remake).

and comments should be editable? it sounds confusing but any move from a forum like comments system to a wiki one is like that... of course they should be separated into several types - editor comments (maybe doing it like this, would be better -), problem info and general knowledge as not everybody would like to see all types of comments...

also maybe asking the user to classify himself as "new(30-20k),ddk(19-10k),sdk(9-1k), low dan(-3d), mid dan(-6d), high d/'lifeless pro' =)" and problems shuld be also user marked per category and "soft limit" (with a warnning and auto-marking the "option-able"(can be manually set/removed by anybody) "for review") when new/ddk editing anything a catagory above or sdk editing 3 categories above?

also the entire grouping thing should perhaps be made into an easier tagging system so that any registered user would be able to tag it as any of the _existing_ groups or suggest a new one... perhaps adding a possible in-tag-order so that we could eventually make some kind of a tsumego encyclopedia (the way they evolve, you know what i mean?)

of course setting standards is a must -
do you want a 6d problem playing out a snap back in the solution? perhaps every problem should cover it to a point obvious to people from two categories below... <- not so easy to describe...
should problems have the minimal amount of stones necessary for them to work? or should they have the entire area cut from the game they were taken from?
also covering a move for every other refutation...
(having in mind that a problem can't have two different ranks because of the strengh of the player anwsering since one _should_ read out the situation before playing =)

and however it may sounds anti-wiki, perhaps certain problems can be locked by the author (fredi for example, made a unique collection of 4x4s which probably is best left untouched?) and only mods be able to edit them if something goes awry? this way even authors who wish to keep control of their work would still be able to post...

perhaps a more standardized game description such as played by ... and ... like in chessproblems would also benefit it...

also ianal but since positions aren't copyrightable (from what i gather?) perhaps a wider coverage in wiki style could be a good idea from the legal point of view?

{Posted by santa c}
Post Reply