Reading mode: Light Dark

Wiki Idea for Phiil Askey

Go to last post
M

MrStuckless

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
473
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta - Canada, CA
There are a lot of experienced photographers who frequent this site and there is a Ton of useful information in the threads, but not always easy to find.

Now that Amazon is inovolved in dpreview, why not begin a Photography tutorial (wikepedia style) where the users can contribute to an in-depth knowledge base on everything Photography... reviews, techniques, Programs, Photoshop, styles etc.

Eventually these could even be published and Sold on Amazon. (profit's could be assigned to a charity of choice of DPreview Forum.)

Anyone else think this might be a good Idea?)
--
Byron
 
there are so many posters who work hard on messages up here, a wiki really is a good idea. it would be high energy, a lot of controversy, but it could really build up to a serious reference.

i found wikipedia works better than google for finding basic information, say i read an acronym and want to know what it is.

the first time i stumbled on wikipedia, i thought it was a joke. i vandalized it, i admit it, i thought somebody made a mistake and forgot to turn security back on. i told them i was god and i was going to be changing a few of maxwells equations. (i didnt make it too hard to fix)

since then, i dont know why, but it seems to answer the questions. i am in my 50's, i was talking with a guy in his 20's, he jumped on wikipedia to look something up. i use it more all the time i said, he said i use it all the time. it just seems to work.
 
i told them i was god and i was
guy in indiana said:
going to be changing a few of maxwells equations. (i didnt make it
too hard to fix)
Click to expand...
That is precisely why something like wikipedia is mildly interesting but worthless as a source of information. It MAY point you in the right direction, but thet it may mislead you entirely...

--
Smile! Tomorrow will be worse!
 
While Wikipedia may be unreliable on subjects that have little interest, on subjects of great interest, it is probably the most consistently reliable source available.
 
in theory it sounds like it would not work. i agree some obscure subjects are agenda driven. but in the same way that people watch their forum threads and respond to what they consider inaccurate information, in practice it accumulates a large volume of good organized information. the advantage of course is that you distribute the task. in this forum, it would be an interesting not easy choice. has tremendous potential.
 
Byron, it's a GREAT idea!

Although some have interpreted the sale to amazon.com as a very negative event, I was encouraged by Phil's apparent reopening of a discussion with us regarding improvements to DPR. I think before the sale, he didn't have time to even consider changes.

On 5-18-07 I sent Phil a private message and suggested a wiki approach:

"Have you considered adopting a wiki approach to all this technical information? Why not let your members expand on your knowledge? One of your real shortcomings is that after your initial “review” of a camera model, the information is stagnant (with a few exceptions). Firmware upgrades come w/o any changes to your “review”. As many users collaborate with a particular model, their collective work exposes limitations, bugs, workarounds, etc. While these are often posted on the Forums, it gets “lost” there. It would be a very powerful paradigm to capture this knowledge and inject it into existing “reviews”!"

This was only a small part of my "book" to Phil.

In some venues, reviewers take a pro vs con approach. I think this is an unavoidable result of opening up a site with a wiki approach...and I look forward to it.

I further noted:

"I often notice when trying to compare a new camera with an old camera, the old camera review took a different approach and it’s difficult to directly compare them, given your constantly changing/improving formats. By allowing your members (perhaps only selected members, as 90% of them can’t write an English sentence) to edit reviews, they could be kept current. I would not worry about errors creeping in, as the beauty of a wiki is that it’s somewhat self policing."

I'm clearly suggesting that a modified wiki model be tried, where the vast majority of members are not allowed to revise previous submissions and that "revisions" take the form of a rebutal, where members can see the many sides of most issues and make their own judgments. For example, while Phil and Dave Etchells often are of the same opinion, I'd love to see a single site with both of their knowledge and mostly, opinions!

Also, the cadre that are accepted to post in the DPR wiki, could be used as proof-readers for new Reviews. Instead of people quickly reading each Review and trying to be the first to point out each typo or error, this could be done behind the scenes. This would increase the quality of the Reviews, with only a few hours delay (as these guys LOVE to jump on them to ferret out glitches).

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'
 
Wikipedia has been statistically proven to have a higher perecentage of correct, verifiable infomartion than any 'traditional' encyclopedia it has been compared to.

And of course, the whole point of the wiki is that if it IS broken, you can fix it...
 
In principle I support the idea of collating all the information into one pool like Wikepedia.

What is the difference between a Wikepedia and this forum, however, when people will rather ask a question that to search for previous references of it first?

If an topic is well documented, what would prevent someone from simply asking the question in the forum?

The issue is not if the answer exist, the issue is if the poster is willing to seek for it first.

Jacques
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'A camera is a device that helps one appreciate the world without it.' - Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Snycer wrote:

"...on subjects of great interest, it is probably the most consistently reliable source available."

My experience is that on very politicized topics (for whatever reason) Wikipedia tends to be dominated by the fanatic minority rather than the common sense majority.

A dpreview wikipedia style resource should find a better way of administering its articles. Just imagine the "DSLR vs DC" debate being played out...
 
I would not use Wikipedia as a primary source for a "serious" article. However, it's extremely useful when you just want to "look up stuff," and it's highly useful even for serious work as long as you check the sourcing for anything you'll actually use.

IOW, don't diss it. You're here, presumably discussing cameras 'n stuff, and we're a helluva lot less trustworthy than Wikipedia.

Petteri
--
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
I would not use Wikipedia as a primary source for a "serious"
article. However, it's extremely useful when you just want to "look
up stuff," and it's highly useful even for serious work as long as
you check the sourcing for anything you'll actually use.
Click to expand...
I want to see a wiki used to supplement Phil's reviews. While Phil is good, he's far from perfect and doesn't have time to go back and correct all his errors. His focus, rightly, is forward to the next new camera. The same is generally true for all reviewers. They are "competing" to see who can get the first review. But they stiill, in varying degrees, also try to get it right.

I think owners of cameras can inject some reality. There are just a lot of things that don't appear in a review...for example the occasional H9 smudged pic. A wiki would allow these "hands-on" experiences to appear in reviews.

Along with easy fixes. For example, the R1, which I have, was gigged for the oversensitive eyepiece sensor (the one that automatically switched the view fron the LCD to the EVF when brought to the eye. The problem was that it also detected bellys! But since it can be "fixed" by putting a small piece of black electrical tape in the right spot, it's not a big problem. Yes, this fix is in the STF, but finding it is almost impossible! The discussion of the issue and it's "fix" should be in a "review".
Petteri Sulonen said:
IOW, don't diss it. You're here, presumably discussing cameras 'n
stuff, and we're a helluva lot less trustworthy than Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
Amen!

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'
 
N/A said:
That is precisely why something like wikipedia is mildly
interesting but worthless as a source of information. It MAY point
you in the right direction, but thet it may mislead you entirely...
Click to expand...
That depends. I use it regularly for algorithms and computer science stuff. Very reliable. I also use it when I have no clue at all regarding a topic. It is more than mildly interesting - itr is a very valuable starting point - and sometimes a very informed end point.

--
Roland
 
... and it makes you miss a valuable source for information. Your loss.

--
Roland
 
TerryKC12 said:
Judging by the 5D entry, looks a little under-supportd. Shame.
Click to expand...
Thats the way of wikis - sometimes you find that a very relevant topic is totally missing. Then you have to search somewhere else.

--
Roland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top