Alright, I searched and found a thread about a CAP wiki project from a couple of years ago. I looked it up on Google and found the site, http://capwiki.net, but it looked hax0red to death (no offense to the creator).
And with the CS wiki having permanent coding problems preventing the creation of new pages and making searching difficult (once again, no offense), I thought I might try my hand at it. The idea of a CAP wiki seems way too good to pass up. Here's the link to my site, under testing:
http://capwiki.wikidot.com/start
To be fair, I'll probably change the name at some point, as I started working on it before I found the other CAP wiki, and don't want to steal the name if it's still being actively used.
Anywho, as I said, it's still in testing mainly because I don't want to "launch" it until I'm sure I'm not going to get sued by CAP for some reason. Although I'm not asking for "official legal advice", what do I need to avoid putting as part of the website? Logo... claiming an official endorsement... and?
Let me know your thoughts.
The original one is just spammed into nothingness. I would suggest delaying launch until you can place one of those type in the funky characters below to post things to prevent auto posts and bots. Or require someway of verifying to post like CAP ID so those who have malevolent intentions can be intercepted.
Your work is very good. Please protect it.
Meh... I hated having to go back and fix stuff that some schmuck had decided to edit and add stuff that was just plain wrong. And most of my activity was reverting pages that got spammed.
Like to see some sort of process for vetting edits to avoid this sort of thing... but then again, the CS wiki didn't seem to really take off even when it worked.
Quote from: MIKE on September 28, 2008, 08:46:37 PM
Meh... I hated having to go back and fix stuff that some schmuck had decided to edit and add stuff that was just plain wrong. And most of my activity was reverting pages that got spammed.
Like to see some sort of process for vetting edits to avoid this sort of thing... but then again, the CS wiki didn't seem to really take off even when it worked.
OK, the idea of a WIKI is pretty cool in that one can harness lots of info from various people, but as you point out there is the potential for shenanigans. Is there no way we can create a CAP encyclopedia that is useful and free of such mischief?
I imagine that it would take a dedicated corps of folks the likes of which exist here. Also, it would provide a real place for you "go look it up" people to send newbies to address their questions.
Ah yes, I can see it now...someone can start a CPTALk thread on a subject, the that someone could compile all the useful discussion into an annotated alamanac to accompany the regs. In fact, the orgaization of the regs could be the templete for the encyclopedia, thus remaining true to canon and the letter of the CAP law.
Any takers?
Most of what a wiki would provide already exists in the "wiki" that is Google - all the regs and docs are already indexed, and we also already have the KB which provides authoritative answers.
Not sure what else you'd put in there - if its not in the regs, its opinion, even if "most" people do it that way, whether its drill, uniforms, or activities.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2008, 09:51:35 PM
Most of what a wiki would provide already exists in the "wiki" that is Google - all the regs and docs are already indexed, and we also already have the KB which provides authoritative answers.
Not sure what else you'd put in there - if its not in the regs, its opinion, even if "most" people do it that way, whether its drill, uniforms, or activities.
Don't be ridiculous, Cousin, there are plenty of unwritten things that are in practice that
you people do that are clearly found in no regulation.
Quote from: flyerthom on September 28, 2008, 07:14:48 PM
The original one is just spammed into nothingness. I would suggest delaying launch until you can place one of those type in the funky characters below to post things to prevent auto posts and bots. Or require someway of verifying to post like CAP ID so those who have malevolent intentions can be intercepted.
Working on it. There is a way I can set it up so that those who decide to join must send in an "application." I would probably just make them say that they are, in fact, human. It's something that I'm considering right now, but the fact that you have to join as a Wikidot member to begin with in order to even join as a member of CAPWiki should hopefully prevent most of the spam from coming through.
There's also an abuse button, and, seeing what happened to the CS Wiki and forums when we let idiots run around, I'm not so wary of banning people pretty quickly if I see them screwing up the wiki...
Quote from: danoMeh... I hated having to go back and fix stuff that some schmuck had decided to edit and add stuff that was just plain wrong. And most of my activity was reverting pages that got spammed.
Like to see some sort of process for vetting edits to avoid this sort of thing...
Easy as pie. On the bottom of the page, users can see the history of the page that they are viewing. They can see the last ten revisions or so, and even compare any two of those revisions in a sample window below with the revisions highlighted. If they choose to, they can also hit a button and revert to any of the previous versions of the page, which in itself counts as a revision and can be reverted from again if need be.
Quote from: Major CarralesIs there no way we can create a CAP encyclopedia that is useful and free of such mischief?
I imagine that it would take a dedicated corps of folks the likes of which exist here. Also, it would provide a real place for you "go look it up" people to send newbies to address their questions.
Actually, the wiki can go a long way towards this goal. While it is true that NORMALLY users can edit any content, it's also true that moderators and admins will have the capablity of locking a page once we, or even better the community, decides that the page is as complete as it needs to be. Once the page is locked, then, if anyone wants to add more things in or take things out, they can either put it in the discussion page of the thread and have the staff add it in, or they can request that the topic be unlocked for further revision. I can even put a page rating system up that allows the community to rate pages in terms of quality so we'll know when we're getting close to the page being complete.
How's that?
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 28, 2008, 10:21:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2008, 09:51:35 PM
Most of what a wiki would provide already exists in the "wiki" that is Google - all the regs and docs are already indexed, and we also already have the KB which provides authoritative answers.
Not sure what else you'd put in there - if its not in the regs, its opinion, even if "most" people do it that way, whether its drill, uniforms, or activities.
Don't be ridiculous, Cousin, there are plenty of unwritten things that are in practice that you people do that are clearly found in no regulation.
There's a ton, but they don't belong in something even pseudo-authoritative for the very reason that they are a subjective opinion, not necessarily supported by the regs.
The reason the Wiki project didn't' get much on-going support on CS (database errors notwithstanding), is that like the CAC, its an answer to a question no one's asking.
I use Wikipedia 10 times a day because there isn't another source of the same aggregate of information on "anything" like it in the world. However there already is just such an aggregate already in the Knowledgebase, and that is an authoritative answer (certainly more authoritative than an unofficial Wiki would be).
By design, all its going to contain is quotes from regulations (which become potentially invalid when the reg is updated), links to regulations (so why not go to the source?) and opinion-based articles on subjective topics (and we already have CS and CT for that).
More power to you if you can make it work, but I can't see the need or where the effort will come from.
Some of us at our wing are looking at a wing-level wiki for things such as continuity books for major wing activites like encampments. Another possiblity is to use it as a central record for historical information about our local units. We haven't had a formal discussion but the idea was brought up.
That could be a very neat idea, using the wiki for historical purposes. All too often CAP's history lives on in boxes or photo albums that are locked in offices.
I would love to see some of the history at the local levels
Quote from: swamprat86 on September 29, 2008, 02:29:59 PM
Some of us at our wing are looking at a wing-level wiki for things such as continuity books for major wing activites like encampments. Another possiblity is to use it as a central record for historical information about our local units. We haven't had a formal discussion but the idea was brought up.
There's no reason why a national-level wiki can't be used for this purpose. I don't think anyone would have a problem with you creating a page about your squadron and its history, or with using the pages for encampment after action reports or the like. It says that on my homepage. :)
Your new site this will cover what else beyond the existing wiki... just wondering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol
Nice looking page, BTW.
Brian
PAWG
Quote from: Rangercap on September 29, 2008, 02:41:09 PM
Your new site this will cover what else beyond the existing wiki... just wondering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol
Nice looking page, BTW.
Brian
PAWG
Well, while the Wikipedia page for CAP is designed to let people on the outside know what CAP is, CAPWiki would exist to serve CAP members with more detailed information pertaining to THEM, not necessarily just to the outside. So there could be information on specific CAP activities, class outlines, different aspects of emergency services, and other sorts of things that would likely be deleted off of Wikipedia for not serving to the interest of enough people.
Just to answer an earlier question about the security of CAPWiki against spam...
In order to be a member of any wiki hosted by Wikidot (such as CAPWiki), you must first sign up as a member of Wikidot. Luckily, this is actually good for us, because Wikidot has all of the anti-spam protections during the creation of a Wikidot account, including the little text-picture thing. And so far, I haven't gotten a single email from Wikidot that I didn't ask for, so I'm assuming that Wikidot doesn't sell your email or anything.
That should keep us pretty well protected against spam and bots. As for malicious users, there's no way I can really prevent them from entering. Even if I had their CAPID's, I wouldn't be able to know who they are or what their reputation is. Plus, I don't necessarily want to close off our pages to non-CAP members; I'm sure there are many former CAP members that can contribute to the pages dealing with CAP history and so on. The only protection I can reasonably offer against malicious users would be the "report abuse" button and my short temper with people who are trying to mess up something I've worked hard on. ;)
Quote from: Nathan on September 30, 2008, 05:26:50 PM
In order to be a member of any wiki hosted by Wikidot (such as CAPWiki), you must first sign up as a member of Wikidot. Luckily, this is actually good for us, because Wikidot has all of the anti-spam protections during the creation of a Wikidot account, including the little text-picture thing.
Those are called "CAPTCHAs", and their effectiveness has been increasingly diminished as better
software breaks the image, or people in 3rd world countries are paid to decode them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capcha
Quote from: Nathan on September 30, 2008, 05:26:50 PM
And so far, I haven't gotten a single email from Wikidot that I didn't ask for, so I'm assuming that Wikidot doesn't sell your email or anything.
Rather than assuming, what does their privacy policy say?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 30, 2008, 05:55:17 PM
Those are called "CAPTCHAs", and their effectiveness has been increasingly diminished as better
software breaks the image, or people in 3rd world countries are paid to decode them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capcha
Okay, so there's no hope for keeping out spam then, right? If that's the case... well, nothing really changes unless I want to sift through everyone who wants to join the Wiki and decide whether or not they are a real person.
As soon as I start having spam problems, I can take care of it. So far, no problems at all, and their community forums haven't noted any spam problems that I could find through a search.
Quote from: Eclipse
Rather than assuming, what does their privacy policy say?
Quote from: Wikidot privacy policyYour email address is only revealed to the Users in your contact list. You shall be warned about it at the moment you add a User to your contact list.
Email address may be used to send Wikidot Newsletter or other important Services information or updates and to notify User about events related to particular user account. The User can decide not to receive any emailed information from the Services by configuring the Account Settings.
Email addresses are not shared with any third party, rent or sold.
I don't know if it is aloud or not. Or if it is even possible for the average user to look up a current member by their CAPID # in the member search with in E-services. I know it won't say much about them , but I wonder if it will at least verify they are a member. Just a thought.
You cannot look up a member in Member Search that is outside your scope (your unit, Group, Wing, or Region).
Further, there are a number of public web sites that I found with a quick Google search that have Personnel Authorizations that include CAPIDs, so fakes would be hard to prevent.
Like I said, it would be easier just to let anyone join. I don't have much of a problem with former or non-CAP members joining up so long as they aren't screwing up the pages (in which case they get the banhammer). Come to think of it, I wouldn't treat a member of CAP any differently if they were screwing up the pages.
I have no doubt that there are some non-CAP members, especially in the form of former members, that can contribute in some way to CAPWiki. As soon as some activity starts showing up, I'll put out a moderator or two to watch the progress and we'll take care of any problems that come up personally.
Having non-members or anonymous posters involved, for the most part, would preclude my participation and support.
I have no idea why this phenomenon of "I'm not a member, but want to participate.", exists, but its pretty silly if you ask me.
If you're not a member, find something else to do with your time then being "involved" with CAP.
"Retired" is not the same as "quit, fired, or never joined". Seasoned former members who retired officially from CAP could certainly contribute, especially regarding historical information.
As to validation, commanders can easily look up anyone through various means. Fully validated, non-anonymous memberships are the only way to prevent spam and insure some quality in the content.
Its not like you're going to get 10K contributors. If you got 100 members who actually had something to contribute I'd be surprised, anyone else con submit content via email or other means. This will not be that big a management problem.
Remember, this is not an opinion based situation, so there is no valid reason for anonymity.
No member is truly anonymous. As I said, every member MUST have a Wikidot account to participate; there is no way to post anoynomously with the way I have the permissions set up. Anyone can LOOK at the Wiki, but if you want to participate, I get to see the IP and, if need be, ban the IP.
And, as I said, if, as you say, the CAPTCHA's don't work, then there isn't a way for me to fight spam. However, having looked at other Wikidot wikis for confirmation, I haven't seen any spam problem at all, so either they have vigilant moderators, or the system Wikidot is using works.
You really don't think former members who served in the sixties or seventies would have ANYTHING to contribute?
Launch day is today. I know things are going to get started slowly, so I'm starting off building pages with lists so our "wanted pages" have a bit of variety.
I'll build this entire thing myself if that's what it takes to convince some people to help me out, so I hope you'll help me out. Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Quote from: Nathan on October 01, 2008, 04:29:08 PM
You really don't think former members who served in the sixties or seventies would have ANYTHING to contribute?
Not if the last time they served was in the 70's, and they have been non-members since, unless
you want to talk ancient history.
[harsh]
And as I've said, I don't see why anyone who can't be bothered to be a
member, would be interested in sharing their "wisdom" with those of us making the effort.
[/harsh]
Quote from: Eclipse on October 02, 2008, 01:43:59 AM
Not if the last time they served was in the 70's, and they have been non-members since, unless
you want to talk ancient history.
Why not? CAP's been around for a while. It might be interesting to see some articles on "ancient history."
Quote from: Eclipse
[harsh]
And as I've said, I don't see why anyone who can't be bothered to be a member, would be interested in sharing their "wisdom" with those of us making the effort.
[/harsh]
If they aren't, then they won't waste the time. If they are, then they will have their content and closely watched and easily edited as any other member of the board. And if I see that a member is screwing around, CAP member or not, then they don't get to play anymore. Seems pretty simple.
Alright, so far, we're starting to build up the cadet pages. Shouldn't be surprising, considering that our only two contributing members right now are cadets.
I'd like to see some input from the senior side, even if it is just creating lists that increases our "wanted pages." For instance, you ES junkies could create a list of the ground team ratings, or a list of common equipment items used during missions. The cadets and cadet program people should have plenty to play with. I've already created a list of all known NCSA's, so anyone that's been to one should have SOMETHING to contribute.
I hope to see you there...
Quote from: Nathan on October 01, 2008, 04:29:08 PM
No member is truly anonymous. As I said, every member MUST have a Wikidot account to participate; there is no way to post anoynomously with the way I have the permissions set up. Anyone can LOOK at the Wiki, but if you want to participate, I get to see the IP and, if need be, ban the IP.
You really need to be careful when you "ban IP's", When you ban IP's you could be banning a Public library and their computers or anyone else in a household. I have been told banning Ip's is not good business. You end up denying honest folks chance to use your site because of someone elses actions.
You need to find out if you can ban the user not IP's.
^ it may be bad business but, using public library accounts and such are the works of folks that want to be TOOLS (for the most part). The amount of folks that actually would view, and on a larger scale post from a public library or the like are overall decreasing. With the availability of broadband today the more common factor would be schools being banned because of some idiot.
I say is someone wants to be a turd and spam/spew. Warn once, then ban away.
So what do you propose to tell a low income cadet's family that has the library as there only means of email, why they cannot post to the board? Libraries were only one example. Sorry I did not give you every example.
Quote from: IceNine on October 05, 2008, 05:33:42 AM
I say is someone wants to be a turd and spam/spew. Warn once, then ban away.
Why ban everyone at a school, library or where ever, for the actions of one person? Why do they need to be punished?
Quote from: messofficer on October 05, 2008, 06:01:38 AM
Quote from: IceNine on October 05, 2008, 05:33:42 AM
I say is someone wants to be a turd and spam/spew. Warn once, then ban away.
Why ban everyone at a school, library or where ever, for the actions of one person? Why do they need to be punished?
No, it's good advice, something I overlooked. I remember trying to edit some pages of regular Wikipedia from my school's computer network, and seeing that the IP was banned was frusterating.
Thanks for the head's up. I can definetely ban the user rather than just the IP, it'll just be more annoying if they decide to be persistent. It may just be a need to hire some moderators to help watch the boards if we ever get to that point.
I guarantee you that if you ban an IP, the odds it is on a shared computer that more than one CAP person uses are slim to none. This isn't going to be wikipedia with 100 people using the same machine and editing docs.
Have the "circle" closed, and invite lots of people that you can trust. Much like the CAP COMM yahoo circle. Everyone has to fess up to their identity. Thus, you should never have spammers.
Start with long time trusted CAPTALK folks, after a few months there should be a good influx of people dedicated to the project.
Bump...
Alright, so I've been working pretty steadily on bringing the site up. I still haven't had much participation, but I didn't exactly expect this thing to shoot off on launch day anyway.
I've been spending most of my time compiling list pages that contain a bunch of links to pages that don't exist yet, such as lists of important people to CAP, list of ranks and positions in CAP, etc. I hope that this will give new users a place to start.
As always, I appreciate any feedback or advice you want to offer. I'm still running the show solo, so I need all the help I can get.
Thanks.
EDIT: Fixing the application process was easier than I thought...
Okay, so there are now two options to join the site after creating a Wikidot account. The first possibility is to provide the password. The password has been changed from "CAP", and will be given to members I can verify are people who want to help out on the project. Chances are if you are on this site, I can probably trust you, so shoot me a PM if you want to go this route.
For those of you who either don't want to go the password route, or for those who may not be on CS, CAPTalk, or know anyone who can/will give them the password, they can apply via application. The "application" is a 200 character text box allowing them to tell me a little about themselves. If I read through and can comfortably feel that they are trustworthy, then I can accept their application, and they will be admitted.
I hope this absolves everyone's concerns about spam and malicious users. Thanks again for the advice.