Sili wiki

[Nightjar]

Colloids, unless you are certain that all comprise a liquid dispersed within another liquid.

Colin Bignell

[stuart noble]

So emulsion paint is really colloid paint?

[Jim K]

From diy faq wiki thing:-

"It is hoped that people (this includes you!) will contribute their own particular skills -whether by writing new articles, improving existing ones or just pointing out where improvements need to be made (in content or in clarity)."

Seems that needs an edit too?

Jim K

[John Rumm]

proving the point it seems...

If sliced bread is such a great idea, why was my loaf stale?

As has been pointed out before, if you find a basic error, fix it or draw attention to it (preferably with a little charm) and it can get fixed (as has happened in this case)

The best articles in the wiki are the ones that have had input from the most people generally. Think of it as peer review.

In the past I have found articles there which I thought were pretty poor. By making changes to them, then inviting others to comment they have IMHO improved dramatically.

It stands to reason that authors of articles will tend to remember that they have collated the answer before, and refer back to it more frequently than people who have not.

How would you know that "elsewhere" is any more accurate?

keep in mind what it says on the front page:

"This wiki is still in its infancy so the range of subjects covered is patchy. Also since most articles are the work of only one or two people they may carry the particular bias(es) of the author(s). (Viewing a page's history tab shows how the page has been edited and how many people have contributed to the process.) "

DIYers helping others DIYers do stuff. Not a difficult concept is it?

Personally I find it a useful resource due to its (sometimes) project focussed approach. It often pulls together information from disparate sources that would be time consuming and difficult (and potentially expensive) to track down.

For example, there is lots of content that is draws on BS7671 and its many many associated "wiring regs" documents, as well as that from lots of related British Standards. Then they present the information in a far more topic focussed and coherent way, than you will find in the source documentation.

(judging by the number of times large swathes of some of our more technical articles get lifted and then used by companies as explanatory material on their own web sites, it seems there are others that deem it useful as well)

Many of our articles also include number of good illustrations which were developed for the site (and again often get "lifted").

Take for example:

A far better explanation of heating system configurations than you will find on the Honeywell site for example. However you will also note that the article has been revised many times as improvements and corrections have been included. I recall there was a fundamental error in one of the source wiring diagrams - that as a result of people commenting on it, now correct in our article. Yet the same error still persists in the source material (i.e. the manufacturers data sheet)

I quite understand people who have no desire to write or contribute to articles themselves - but then it does seem a little churlish to berate those that do.

[polygonum]

Think that needs an edit:

massively churlish

[ARW]

Or indeed a "copy and pasted" old version of parts of the Wiki on a tradesmans website:-)

[Jim K]

eh?

because the QC was somewhat lacking? Fortunately it was only stale and not laced with something nasty, - as it turned out...

indeed, I regard my initial post as quite MOR consisting of results of factual googlings and questions. Perhaps no charm but no malice either.

trudging through the page "history", the clanger had been in there for circa 7 years... guess we (still) need more peers?

& very noble of you (meant +vely ;>)).

But... apparently no better/worse for veracity than anywhere else ? How many googlers will land on/know of/bother to read the disclaimers?

mmm... those whose 1st reply on this emotive thread concluded:-

"There are 2 kinds of people in life, contributors & whiners. If you have some knowledge, contribute it. Hint: wikis work by progressive improvement." ?

Looking at the history of wiki articles there are only a few "regulars" (including your good self). So OOI roughly how many (relatively) active "Logins" are there for those that are dedicated enough to "physically" (fingers on keyboard) contribute/edit/whatever to the wiki ?

Jim K

[John Rumm]

All things which do not suddenly make sliced bread a bad idea ;-)

(did that comment about water *really* cause you that much pain?)

Same goes for the wiki - it can be a good idea with an imperfect implementation (or in some cases a flawed idea with a better than expected result!)

Perhaps the "Who writes this stuff and based on what?" tagline ruffled some feathers.

Yes, very much so.

Depends on your definition of "better". In terms of absolute factual error rate - probably no better. In terms of being based on actual experience - hopefully much better.

The article in question contains detailed advice on application and removal of silicone - put together from many contributors who have had the (less than fun job) lots of times. They are also FAQs in this newsgroup. So it that sense I find that article better than many others I have seen.

Who knows? However I suspect many will be looking for advice on use of silicone, or on the applications of it. Questionable factoids about its chemical composition are unlikely to diminish the value of what they find.

Its a good point, but does not tell the full story - since many of the articles have been discussed here in detail. So you may find that for some articles, lots of eyes have read and discussed the content, even if only a handful of people did the actually write-up and summary of those discussions.

I concede that its not always easy to work out how many "behind the scenes" people have been involved. Personally I try to include some of that detail in the comments that describe the reason for changes - and possibly the name of the person who triggered the change or sourced the information used.

Of the 140+ odd total registered users, a few are dead, and some were probably created as spam accounts! (there was also a time before spam became too much of a problem, when anonymous edits were allowed). A good many are dormant.

There are only probably five or six that do regular work creating new stuff and organising old. There are also others that have contributed stuff just on one or two articles that are of specific interest to them, but don't dabble in others. There are also a handful of (greatly appreciated) regulars that help mop up typo and minor grammatical errors in new articles, and then vanish again til next time. Also a few who have made great contributions with diagrams, photos, and other graphics but have not had much of a hand in dealing with the words.

The contributions also vary greatly with domain. So many of the electrical and heating systems pages are very strong in content and accuracy, which is probably not surprising given the skills and knowledge of some of the regulars of the group. There are others which are flights of fancy for individuals and count more as op-ed pieces, or simply stories of the stuff people have done.

[meow2222]

backpedal madly

John's already given examples of how it is. Its only a little wiki though, plenty of growth ahead if it survives.

how many sites have disclaimers? how many are open to endless skilled contributors? how many are open for endless correction?

we know who's berating. The only problem here is your hostility & childish position.

NT

[Jim K]

/ we know who's berating. The only problem here is your hostility & childish position./q

:-) How nice to hear from you again, and with more than one sentence this time too!

Glad I could help

Jim K