Florida Frank wrote:I'm opposed to an open edit of existing content.

Even if this is the wish of the page owner and original author?

Several members have mentioned that the proposal to open area/mountain/route pages for editions would only concern page owners who are willing to open their own pages for edition (beside, possibly, abandonned pages). I haven't seen much debate on this thread regarding this idea, so shall we consider that there is a silent consensus in favour?

After all, shouldn't we leave it to each member to decide if he/she wants to open his/her own pages for public edition (provided that the site programmer is willing to spend some extra hours to create this option)?

I really don't understand many of the concerns expressed on this thread, as I think nobody has ever proposed to convert Summitpost to another Wikipedia.

Regarding the climber/hiker and technical/non-technical debate, IMHO it is nothing more than a storm in a glass of water. I don't even understand what the current problem is.

So glad this Summitpost community feels so threatened by one of my very infrequent posts, that you big boys have to resort to slight. You only show how little you are.

For those that want to discuss things, the issues as I see them are: There is so much useless stuff on Summitpost. Not stuff that has information missing, but stuff that has INCORRECT data about mountain, route, approaches etc. Penelope and I are climbers, hikers, skiers and mountaineers. We try to use Summitpost for all of our trips. What we find is not lack of data (I could easily live with that) but data that is incorrect, missleading and inacurate. It got to the point that we don't use this reference much at all. I could name ton of issues, but the safe thing to say is, IF YOU DIDN"T CLIMB THE MOUNTAIN, ROUTE ETC. Do not post it. I even e-mailed people about their mountains and routes only to be told well I have not climbed it so I don't know...
Secondly, the emphasis on hiking is such that technical climbing is getting lost in the mass of data. If you don't separate the technical from the non, you are burrying the technical stuff and burried it gets.
Again, as there are walks, there are scrambles and there are technical climbs. These can easily be separated within Summitpost and each category can be represented.
Thirdly, non-offensive and non-confrontational way must be found to change pages that are blatantly wrong. I do not advocate more data to pages, but there needs to be a way to say "you really ment to say go sharp right on Thursday, rather then go left and down Saturday morning".
And for those who think this issue has anything to do with elitism, I can assure you, it has everything to do with search for usefull info.

Arkitekt wrote:It seems that since it is the easiest, "Adding an open section at the bottom of each beta page, between the last field and the image gallery, for edits and corrections."

would be a great first step. I would think that if people put information in that field the author of the page could choose to include or not include more of that content. Discussions could be had between owners and new posters. I have had these kinds of discussions with other members and people have always been most interested in presenting the most accurate information possible.

Ultimately if the owner is inactive or has no say in it for a set period of time. It may be helpful if the "new poster" can become a partner in the ownership of the page so that the rest of the page can be upgraded also.

I'd go for this too. See how hard it is, then think about having a comments section at the end of every section in the original text. As for approval, I'd put it this way: either the elves or the original author can choose to give it some sort of finality (the elves will be presumed to be impartial).

I know you don't want to put lots of extra photos in, but we can always have links to other photos on SP. For example, if I were to add to the North Guardian Angel page, I would put in a polite link to
NGA route picture ...with some updates on the teetering boulder, bees at one hairy spot, and recent landslide info.

...so the corrections and additions section should have either php or html language, as now exists, built in. The author might decide s/he wanted less detailed information, and could edit that out, maybe with elf permission.

Bruno wrote:Several members have mentioned that the proposal to open area/mountain/route pages for editions would only concern page owners who are willing to open their own pages for edition (beside, possibly, abandonned pages). I haven't seen much debate on this thread regarding this idea, so shall we consider that there is a silent consensus in favour?

This was the proposal that started the article from a few days ago. I'm also surprised that it gets overlooked. Many, many people have said they don't want "full wiki," but we already knew that, and it was never on the table. Probably 50% of this thread is just a restatement of that idea (along with lots of colorful "I'll pack my bags" and "I was warned about this collectivist tendency!" ).

Bruno wrote:After all, shouldn't we leave it to each member to decide if he/she wants to open his/her own pages for public edition (provided that the site programmer is willing to spend some extra hours to create this option)?

That is the spirit of the proposal.

Bruno wrote:Regarding the climber/hiker and technical/non-technical debate, IMHO it is nothing more than a storm in a glass of water. I don't even understand what the current problem is.

I like the passion and creativity on this subject, but I also think it's window dressing. At the most, add one more button to the front page that encapsulates the query (ROUTE_YDS_SCORE >= 5.6) or something like that. It's not the central issue.

asmrz wrote:Again, as there are walks, there are scrambles and there are technical climbs. These can easily be separated within Summitpost and each category can be represented.
Thirdly, non-offensive and non-confrontational way must be found to change pages that are blatantly wrong. I do not advocate more data to pages, but there needs to be a way to say "you really ment to say go sharp right on Thursday, rather then go left and down Saturday morning".
And for those who think this issue has anything to do with elitism, I can assure you, it has everything to do with search for usefull info.

I see your point Alois, so maybe we should define the terms better. For example, consider North Guardian Angel, the example above; I've seen your signature in the register. I consider it a scramble with optional use of ropes; the fist time I went up and down, we used nothing. Yet I've also set two raps, and last time I was there, a group of rock climbers belayed 4 pitches. Across the way, the most common route to SGA has one small cliff originally rated class 4 by the DPS, now called 5.4 by more recent climbers.

I would not rate these as rock climbs; but I would put class 4 or 5.4 in the rating. Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the currently (throw-away) category (you know, bouldering, alpine, hiking, etc.) and have a category that is climbing for climbing sake?

It seems what we really need is a search that will be sensitive to these parts of a page, and will display only those entries that (e.g.) imply "climbing for climbing sake" -- and I'm not being pejorative -- when desired. A good search and display function will give every person the summitpost that s/he wishes to see. Consider how it is done on facebook.

MoapaPeak, Re The Angels, the area is visited by mostly non-technical people. I would think rating things with an eye toward who goes up there would be the prudent thing to do. In case of the Angels (S and N) I would rate it perhaps a bit higher rather then lower. Also,those existing ratings come from the old days (1940-50s) of Sierra Club, we could downgrade anything these days. But is that a good way to go? I'm sure it matters not to you or me whether the NGA is 4th or 5.4, but it could matter to some unsuspecting chap.

Lionel wrote:How would we prevent vandalism if a wiki type editing system was installed? Would it need to be approved by the author or an elf to take effect?

One idea that has been floated is a minimum number of power points, not something so high as to deter people but high enough for someone to be established as a legitimate member. This might mean recalculating how points are given for pictures and gear reviews since it is easy to accrue points that way without doing any real work.

asmrz wrote:So glad this Summitpost community feels so threatened by one of my very infrequent posts, that you big boys have to resort to slight. You only show how little you are.

There's no need to hurl personal insults. We're all just expressing our opinions and I didn't see anyone insult you.

There will always be errors when content is developed by a diverse group of people. There are no exceptions. Wikipedia, MP, RC.com, and every other member driven content site has some inaccurate data. SP does provide ways of dealing with it though.

1) Provide feedback to the page owner through a PM, or use the Additions/Corrections forms on the page. I do it EVERYTIME I see an error and in most cases the owner updates the page pretty quickly. This is not difficult to do!

2) If the owner does not update the page for several weeks, notify the Elves, or post a message in the forums so that people can voice their opinions by voting on the page. BE MORE PROACTIVE. If the page score goes down and the owner doesn't respond, odds are good that the Elves will assign the page to you if you want it.

I treat SP like it is my website. I want it to be perfect. When I see something wrong, I try to correct it. What is so hard about that? I just don't get it honestly. If you are unhappy with the quality of the content and are doing nothing to correct it, then you are part of the problem. Stop whining and be more proactive in improving the quality.

BTW, I'm NOT opposed to some of the changes that have been suggested but I'm not sure they will actually solve the quality problem if people don't care enough to provide the feedback. The tools are already there to do that and they are not being used. Will more people provide feedback just because the comments section is viewable on the main page versus a linked page? Maybe, but I have my doubts... If you think that will help then I'm all for it.

Lastly, who's to say that info entered into a Wiki type comments section is going to be accurate? I don't see that as the end all be all to this problem.

If you don't separate the technical from the non, you are burrying the technical stuff and burried it gets.

It already is separated. Here are all the SP routes over 5.4 (or whatever difficulty you choose) in difficulty:

http://www.summitpost.org/object_list.p ... bject_name

It seriously takes about a few seconds to separate them on your own at whatever criteria you choose (i.e. harder than 5.8 or easier than class 3).

Not stuff that has information missing, but stuff that has INCORRECT data about mountain, route, approaches etc.

If this is true, then vote that way and point it out. Incorrect data isn’t acceptable if not corrected.

I could name ton of issues

It would be good to point them out. Add additions/corrections to the page as well.

Not sure I understand why climbers and hikers can't be holding hands and singing Kumbuya around the Campfire, at least until the "changes" to this Site have been approved and implemented.

Keep hearing these words:

Over - active

Proactive

Inactive

Not Active

Sometimes Active

Seldom - Active

Under- active

To me, these words describe what is BEST about SP. If WE were all the SAME, this SIte would be completely boring, and I'd have to find TWO toothpicks to
keep my eyes open. Either that, or I'd most certainly become "inactive" myself. I choose to be ACTIVE, because I want to see this site GROW.

Even if I have to sit down at the table and EAT all my veggies.

Very shortly: I opt for that extra section in the bottom of the pages. That would give enough exposure to additions/corrections, yet it wouldn't require more work maintaining the pages by their owners. For wiki style editing, there is wikipedia...

lcarreau has been inspiring me a lot lately .

What is so bad about being inactive? It's only "bad" when you own a batch of pages that people want to contribute to but can't because you don't return calls. Yes, they made the pages once, but that was then and now they've moved on. What do they care?

If they had allowed collaboration on their pages then they could definitely go away without bad feelings from the rest of us. They came, they contributed, they disappeared. In the world of dozens of free internet services competing for our eyeballs, this should be expected behavior. Instead we keep asserting a wish that "if they would only" return and take care of their work we wouldn't have something to complain about. Magical thinking.

Diversity of activity levels is healthy.

peterbud wrote:Very shortly: I opt for that extra section in the bottom of the pages. That would give enough exposure to additions/corrections, yet it wouldn't require more work maintaining the pages by their owners. For wiki style editing, there is wikipedia...

Thanks Peter. I take exception to the last statement though, as it sounds true, though it's not.

If you go to Wikipedia and start adding route information for the Southwest Ridge of some mountain, especially as your info becomes specific ("the two pin belay anchor at the top of pitch 8 is unsafe, can someone bring a new Lost Arrow?"), then your info will be promptly deleted.

Wikipedia has decided to be an encyclopedia of the world, and ruthlessly removes content that is too specific. Basically, they tell you to go to a site like Summitpost (nice, eh?) to add this level of detail.

When this "ugly" wiki idea reared it's head a year ago I spent some time over there, wondering if that was the right thing to do. I learned that it's just not possible for the type of content we traffic in.

Anyway, sorry for over-posting. Good night,
--Michael

Great thread.

First off SP is already great.

To adress the issues of inaccuracies and poor submissions, I like the following ideas...

The current system for additions/corrections by way of contributing to the A/C section, then messaging, then e-mailing, then contacting the elves is functional, perhaps more users need to be educated about it. A brief description of these ethics could be added to the additions/corrections section.

1. The added section at the bottom of a page for all to see for additions/corrections is good. I think perhaps there maybe a need to make it even more appealing for the possible lax page owner to take action such as allowing other users to vote a "like" on the revisions. Also perhaps by making this particular section stand out a bit with some color.

2. By giving points to someone who has only a blank page is promoting pointless points. Removing that type of system seems like a great idea. Only until the page is voted upon should it recieve points.

3.Faster upload speeds on contributions.

I am not too keen on putting ones pages up for adoption after a certain period of inactivity. I believe they deserve to be contacted via e-mail and only after no response over six months has been made by them should this happen.

EDIT: I am not in favor of the wiki option.

peterbud wrote:For wiki style editing, there is wikipedia...

Although I like the information posted on wikipedia, when it comes to travel information, wikipedia is lame! (I'm saying this in the nicest of terms)

"I took a look at the article you created for Vesper Peak. Thanks for creating this article. However, some aspects of the article are not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a travel or how-to guide; see what Wikipedia is not."

This was the response I got from the wikipedia admins. The Vesper Page on Wikipedia got the beta removed and stripped out by the admins themselves.
But don't worry, I'm starting up where wikipedia ended on that note.