Encourage users to mark topic as solved.

[Claude Moore]

Sorry if I bother you with this idea, but after I've noticed that in the new look a Wiki section has been introduced, I started wondering if it may be useful to invent some method to encourage users to mark as solved a question they posted (when of course a question is really solved and proven to work), or, similarly, if the "thumb up" feature may be used to point out posts that have been effective in answering any question, so that good answers , for example, may join the wiki section when a certain number of given cows or thumbs up are given.


Of course, I understand that JavaRanch is not a code mill, nor a consulting site....and I understand that there's already a "Best this month" section. But personally I learnt a lot here, really, so that I think that it would be wonderful if a sort of "Knowledge base" may be created from questions and answers.

Thank you for your attention, and thanks again for this amazing community !

[Henry Wong]

The Wiki system as currently designed, is just like a ... well ... a wiki... ... Anyone can create a Wiki topic. And anyone else can edit that Wiki topic*.

You don't need thumbs up, cows, or resolved topics, to earned the right to create wiki topics. Or is that what you are suggesting should happen?

Henry

* Ranchers and Moderators had additional privileges, but let's not complicate the discussion

[Claude Moore]

More or less....I think that quality posts should become part of a "knowledge base" (cannot find a better term), moderated by Bartenders for example,when these post are effective answers to recurrent problems in programmes. And that it would be fine if OPs were encouraged to mark as solved their questions (but I don't know how, honestly). Solved questions may be useful as practical solutions for recurrent problems, and may be searched in a dedicated section...

[Henry Wong]

First, have two cows. One for starting this discussion. And one to encourage you to continue the discussion ...

IMHO, the ranch has a lot of features to measure and encourage the quality of topics (and users) on the forum... thumbs up, cows, pies, resolve marks, rancher status, etc., backed by lots of privileges earned with those features. It would be great to see these features also applied to Wiki topics too.

On the other hand, the philosophy of Wikis is the ability for anyone to edit a page. This seems to be the opposite of quality...

I am interested in your thoughts (or anyone else actually) on this issue. What would be the best way to apply those features (with the goal of quality)? And yet, try to maintain some of the design philosophy of what is a Wiki?

Thanks,
Henry

[Claude Moore]

Henry Wong wrote:
First, have two cows. One for starting this discussion. And one to encourage you to continue the discussion ...

Really happy for that !

Henry Wong wrote:
IMHO, the ranch has a lot of features to measure and encourage the quality of topics (and users) on the forum... thumbs up, cows, pies, resolve marks, rancher status, etc., backed by lots of privileges earned with those features. It would be great to see these features also applied to Wiki topics too.

On the other hand, the philosophy of Wikis is the ability for anyone to edit a page. This seems to be the opposite of quality...

I fully agree with you. "Cows system" is indeed a nice, funny and effective way to measure quality of both posts and users' activity (how much an user is helping this community sharing ideas and knowledge, I mean). Most important, it doesn't make feel you like you were in a championship with score points:
ranking in JavaRanch is flavored with a bit of humor. And that's great !
About Wiki, I think that rules similar to those that are applied to Rattlesnake Pit forum should be hold. Only "trusted" (or "elite") members (bartenders, marshal, sheriffs and so on) should be able to post new topics in Wiki, or to decide if a quality discussion (summarized, of course) should be part of a wiki or not.
This doesn't preclude anybody to contribute to the WikiRanch, even if not in a direct form (by creating new pages).
If an user is an elite member, he or she can edit or create Wiki pages.
If not, he or she is still able (and welcome) to contribute: posting quality posts and discussions and let moderators evaluate if his or her work and ideas are worth to be part of a wiki.
This reflects the way users' profiles are ranked: you start being a Greenhorn, then you're promoted to Ranch Hand after 10 posts, but after that there aren't automatic upgrades.
It's elite users that create new Ranchers, Bartenders and so on; not the number of received cows, pies or thumbs up that promote an user to higher levels.

[Henry Wong]

Claude Moore wrote:
This doesn't preclude anybody to contribute to the WikiRanch, even if not in a direct form (by creating new pages).
If an user is an elite member, he or she can edit or create Wiki pages.
If not, he or she is still able (and welcome) to contribute: posting quality posts and discussions and let moderators evaluate if his or her work and ideas are worth to be part of a wiki.

Full disclosure, but you probably already guessed... we are having internal discussions regarding the wiki feature ...


This is actually a pretty strong position. In fact, I don't think we ever considered the Wiki as being a privileged feature that has to be earned to use.

The generally design philosophy of a Wiki is that anyone can create or edit a page. Granted that not all pages are created equal, and hence, there should be restrictions to editing certain pages, but we never thought of restricting direct usage of the Wiki entirely. On the other hand, we also never considered the forum to be a form of the Wiki either... even though they are merged now ...

Anyway, thanks. I'll mention you thoughts (and anyway else who post here) into the other discussions. Have a cow.

Henry


Note: I must mentioned that by "strong position", I meant the most restrictive, so far, for creation and editing purposes, by users. I do not mean that I "strongly agree" with the position. In fact, I do not. I would prefer a solution that gets closer to the design philosophy of what is a Wiki -- meaning allowing the creating and editing of pages for all.

[Winston Gutkowski]

Henry Wong wrote:Full disclosure, but you probably already guessed... we are having internal discussions regarding the wiki feature ...
This is actually a pretty strong position. In fact, I don't think we ever considered the Wiki as being a privileged feature that has to be earned to use.

Hmmm. As the author of a few FAQ pages myself, I do worry about the ability to edit ones created by other people unless you're a "trusted" member (or the author, of course). I don't have any problem with people adding new ones though - assuming we keep a "paternal" eye on them.

Winston

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

THere's also an aspect of "it depends on the wiki". For example, the OCAJP Wall of Fame page could easily be someone's first post ever - they get certified and register to say that.