Wiki Content Generation Process

Here's how I generate content on wiki. I've generated maybe 2000 pages this way. Might not work for you.

A half-idea hits me. Usually, it's attached to a word or phrase. I'm writing about something else and that phrase just finds itself a niche. I CamelCase it.

Then I follow the link and write what occurs to me. For example, this morning it was GumLanguage. Yesterday, it was SpecificationIsNotSolution. Before that ... well, you get the idea.

Now, BackWhenWikiWorked?, doing that was an invitation to contribute content. You'd throw off half a page and you could rely on the community to fill the rest in, often with more than you could have supplied yourself. This was such a valuable process it came to be called "The WikiNature".

And WikiNature still happens sometimes. Unfortunately, what also happens is that before anyone has time to let their brain go "ping!" some self-appointed WikiReductionist jumps on the half-idea and either deletes it immediately or makes it harder to complete it by slapping "DeletionCandidate" and similar worthless but official-sounding crap on it.

Result: you either have to complete the idea yourself, which is horrible AjiKeshi, or you have to watch the thing get stomped and swept up before it had a chance of getting its bearings.

And that sucks. It prevents wiki from working. I wish to hell you'd stop doing it. I'd rather that instead you OpenYourMind and see what falls out onto the page I just made, so it can grow. If nothing substantial happens, I want you to just leave the thing be so others can get stuck in without having to get past your "WORTHLESS!" stamp first. I want you to respect the WikiNature and change your ways. Please. -- PeterMerel

When I added my $.02 to SpecificationIsNotSolution, I had no idea how old it was, so I apologize for encouraging its deletion if it was premature. However, it has also been argued that, lacking any idea for content, leaving a dangling link is adequate to the purpose you have in mind. I'm relatively neutral on the topic myself, but we've had a long run of people actively working to prevent any cleanup, so I tend to support what appears to be legitimate housekeeping. If you had responded by adding a bit more content, a little more of a hint as to where the thought was going, I probably wouldn't have added my bit. -- DanMuller

I second that, but apologize for slapping DeletionCandidate on it prematurely. Maybe we could use some tag, that indicates this incompleted state. Maybe ContentWanted, PleaseContribute? or ContentInProgress? would do. See also StrangePage. -- GunnarZarncke

Don't we already have WikiTags (EditHint, FixMe, PleaseComment) for this? -- IanOsgood

Or, we try and make wiki a place where anytime anyone sees any page, they think: oh, some content in progress here, doubtless there is more content wanted, and I'm sure that the previous authors are asking me please to contribute. Whether there are a bunch of tags there to prompt them or not... -- KeithBraithwaite

I can understand the frustration with the current development of WikiWiki (there once was a WikiDeclineLament? page that had this tenor). In this case two WikiGnomes mistook a seeding page for noise, which is sad, but may be an indication, that the seed may have been planted too poorly (in this special case). In such very thin seeding cases a ContentWanted tag or an alike mechanism might possibly help. -- GunnarZarncke

If someone wants to delete a page, an existing ContentWanted tag may just encourage them. After all, it is evidence that the original author acknowledges that the page is lacking content. The problem here is that gnomes have a hard time distinguishing seed pages from noise pages, based on content alone. These pages are either going to be honest contributions from well-meaning contributors, or trolls. If a particular page is an honest contribution, then I would expect its author to follow the convention and use the ContentWanted badge. On the other hand, if the page is a troll, then I would expect its author to try to disguise it by using the ContentWanted badge. In both cases, the badge is added to the new page. So the badge can't help with the current problem. I agree with Keith - the solution is in building community. It appears to be impossible to distinguish seed pages from noise pages based on content alone, so we will have to start using the page's author to distinguish them. -- MichaelSparks

Basically I agree, but a) trolls may not be fluent enough to use the tag and b) the tag helps finding such pages (ok ok, we all are RecentChangesJunkies, that will notice all pages anyway). -- .gz

I have no problem with half completed pages (whatever completion means). Those who care enough will fill it in. Perhaps this process does not happen quickly any more because the EditCodeWord is reducing contributions across the board. If you think a page needs more content, well... TheresNoTimeLikeThePresent?. Take some time to research a writeup and stick it in the page. Everybody will benefit. -- IanOsgood

How to tell noise from seed? That's easy: if you understand it and it's drivel, delete it, refactor it, or refute it. If you don't understand it, can't tell if it's drivel or not, or generally feel uncertain about it, leave it be. The WikiNow is long and the WikiNature works.

If you have a burning desire to know what the hell whatever that mysterious bit of content is about, it's an awful lot more welcoming to slap on "ContentWanted" yourself than "DeletionCandidate". Then if a page is "ContentWanted" and its last edit was ten years or more ago, it might be fair to call it a DeletionCandidate ... well, I might give a bit on the length of time ... -- Pete

DeleteRefactorOrRefute? is a great candidate for a page title. Well, it sounds snappy anyway.

In some cases, good idea. Doesn't apply to Pete's case, though, and "ContentWanted" isn't quite the same as what Pete's complaining about above...I think a tag like "PageNotFinishedYet?" or "IncompleteThoughtsBeingFleshedOut?" or "PleaseHelpCompleteThisPage?" might be to the point. -- DougMerritt

Doug's right, it's not what I'm complaining about. I don't believe DeleteRefactorOrRefute? is a good idea. I think LeaveImproveOrRefactor? is a good idea. Refactoring entails deletion under appropriate circumstances.
"WikiNatureFirst?" is what I'm saying really. I don't have any problem with WikiReductionism? - I heartily approve and promote same. But WikiNature should be our first priority. The default attitude to a seed page should be just to leave it to sprout. If it doesn't grow and intertwingle in, say, a year, cull it automatically with a script. Then gnoming doesn't have anything to do with deletion except in the course of refactoring and gnomes are helpers, not judges. -- Pete

As I said before, I will slap StrangePage or ContentWanted on such ununderstandable pages as needed from now on. Satisfied? -- .gz

Accusations of strangeness or wanting will not make a page grow. They make the page seem less valuable and less attractive to authors. What would satisfy me is ... see above.

To further explain myself: I have used the last few months of reduced traffic (yes, probably due to the EditCodeWord) to improve this Wiki by condensing it. And I think, that other WikiZen and WikiGnomes have done so too. I saw it as a phase of WikiReductionist-ism. Maybe this period was a kind of WikiSpringCleaning. I think Wiki can only benefit from an expand-contract cycle. Yes, cycles may contradict a continuous WikiNow/WikiPresent?. On the other hand, a condensed Wiki can provide a base for a new prospering of new ideas - in an environment where they can be seen clearly and not drowned out by noise pages. I'm sorry that your bright flowers were cut down during this period, but that's the way with lawn mowing. Sorry, we do our necessary work. -- VolunteerHousekeeper

I've been doing a bit of late spring cleaning, myself. I've gone through old DeletionCandidates and other such categories. I've also applied DeletionCandidate to a number of pages, new or old, that seemed OffTopic or tangential to me. You have to realize that adding that WikiBadge does not schedule the page for deletion. There's plenty of time to grow the page into something useful. BTW, I think ContentWanted is fine on a half-completed page that is relevant to programming. I think it's silly on an empty or OffTopic page. -- another VolunteerHousekeeper

Adding the badge discourages content. It doesn't help except as a way to search for deletion candidates. This is easily and more thoroughly done by searching for orphans and walled-gardens that have a last-edit of more than a year ago. Therefore DeletionCandidateConsideredHarmful? ... -- Pete
- Or, adding the badge encourages refactoring the page into something that isn't a DeletionCandidate.
Well, it depends on the tag and its interpretation. I personally use "DeletionCandidate" when I am doubtful that the page will mature into something of value, but have enough doubt that I want to merely raise the topic rather than delete (I do in fact delete aggressively, so it's not that I'm shy about it, it just depends). I actually think that's common, it's just that people's judgement on the subject differs.
There is, after all, the notion that WikiIsNotYourNotebook, so one tradition says that the half-baked idea shouldn't be given a page until it is developed enough to have some value. That's not an unreasonable tradition, although I do have some sympathy for thinking out loud.
- Note: WikiIsNotYourNotebook isn't about halfbaked ideas. It's about people using Wiki as their personal WalledGarden. It was created in response to RA dumping his personal notes for using some piece of software here. -- EM
- RA is not the only person to have done so, and not the only one to have been critiqued for doing so. The concept that such is inappropriate is years older than that badge page itself. I also do not see support for the notion that "WikiIsNotYourNotebook isn't about halfbaked ideas". Look at the content of that page again; nothing contradicts this usage. That may not be how you thought of that badge before, but it nonetheless applies here. -- DM
- Oh dear. The thing is, I wrote that page, and that is not at all what I had in mind. I guess I need to make it less ambiguous? Well, on reading it again, I can't see how it does apply to halfbaked ideas. Would you like to fix it? -- EM
The problem is that if everyone thought out loud like that, we'd end up with an awful lot of half-baked pages that need to be weeded out a year later -- or more, depending on when people notice it's still around, whereas if it is not created until it has actual content, then junk doesn't proliferate.
To put it another way, you (Pete) have interesting ideas, and although I argue with a lot of them, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your unfinished thoughts. However, think about it: there are fair number of regulars who don't grok that their unfinished thoughts are not interesting and will never be interesting (consider unwelcome parties, if no one else comes to mind). If we single you out as an exception, then that forces us to note that the other half-baked pages are unexceptional, so we would then be forced to say or imply "You other guys are subhuman cavemen, and we can't be bothered with your new ideas. Don't even try to play at Pete's level; you don't have the mental capacity and never will". Which of course would be extremely antisocial, rude, unnecessarily insulting, goes against WikiNature, etc etc etc. (And might be completely false, worse yet. Sometimes people are simply misunderstood.)
So let's start by assuming that it's a level playing field, and that we'll all play by the same rules, to avoid that kind of uncomfortableness.
Given that, would you like to explore a tag, such as those I suggested above, to slap on your own unfinished works, with the understanding that any WikiGnome may doubt its appropriateness, and change it to "DeletionCandidate", if they are unsympathetic to the idea? After all, if someone else is going to assist with maturing the idea/page, that would be the time for them to leap in and fix the page, and contrariwise, if that doesn't happen, then in fact it's true that at least one person thought it really should be deleted.
Sorry for being so verbose this time around. -- DougMerritt

A number of thoughts come to mind as I watch this discussion.

One is that Peter is wishing for wiki to be as it was; but that wish does not acknowledge how wiki is. The proliferation of junk pages is a legitimate problem these days, one that gnomes are trying to address. In truth, the page in question seemed quite deletable to me. The title seemed to express a self-evident thought; the two very brief sentences on it didn't even seem directly related to the thought. (What do tests have to do with specification? Or von Neumannn architectures?)

However, I did not look at the page's history, and the fact that Gunnar edited it only to put a badge on it obscured the fact that it was a new page. Had I noticed that it was brand new, I would probably have perceived it as a seed or to-be-expanded work and either left it alone or asked for clarification. (I only rarely take initiative on my own to delete pages anyway, but I think that's beside the point.) To this extent, I think zealous application of badges to new pages might be considered harmful.

But the process initially extolled on WikiNature is not practical on wiki as it is today. (And, by the way, it does not seem to be a theme even acknowledged by subsequent contributors, not does it even necessarily imply the creation of nearly empty pages - I question how essential this is to WikiNature.) The recent headaches that led to tighter control on wiki make me think that it's not unreasonable to expect pages to stand on their own merits.

It might seem practical to turn back the clock right now, but only because broad IP bans have reduced traffic to a trickle of activity that is probably reminiscent of the wiki that Peter longs for. I still hope that is a temporary condition, because I think the bans are stiflingly broad.

It should not (as Doug points out) be necessary to look at who authored a page in order to understand its purpose. If you have a thought but no expansion for it, it would be more appropriate to simply leave a dangling wiki word and hope that someone else will create a page if they have something to add to that thought. If you feel very strongly that it should have a page, then you must have enough of an idea to be able to write a few informative sentences about it. Nowadays, C2 wiki serves a community too large and too diverse to work well as a shared free-association word game, without descending back into the sort of incoherency that we've only recently started to recover from.

-- DanMuller

A finished page can stand on its own. It is possible to look at an old page and understand its purpose without considering who authored it. A seed page is different. When you throw trolls into the mix, that is. Seed pages and troll bait pages start out the same. They have an undeveloped idea, and maybe a call for contributions. The difference is in the author's intentions. With a genuine seed page, the author wants to have a real conversation and develop the idea. With a troll bait page, the author wants to have a conversation and waste your time. Think about RA for some examples here. He created countless seed pages with his various ideas about wikis, software, etc. They were just traps so that he could steal other people's time. But at revision 1 of the page, there just isn't enough there to know that. The troll intentionally seeks to create that confusion! If others could identify his pages as trolls easily, he would never get any bites. -- MichaelSparks

Maybe I started this discussion with my slapping of DeletionCandidate on Petes pages. Maybe I can bring this discussion to an end with the following resolution: We do no longer need a special new tag for these unfinished or seed pages. Many WikiZen and WikiGnomes have participated in this discussion or at least read it (I bet). We have been sensitized for this problem. We don't need the tag - and if we need one, we can slap WikiContentGenerationProcess on it, as a reminder of this discussion. -- GunnarZarncke

JulyZeroFive

CategoryWiki CategoryWikiProgress