Hey people,
While lurking at the Olympic Pistol forum, I came across this post suggesting a consolidation of all shooting information into a wiki.
As I have not come across such a site before, I would like to gauge the general response first. Would you shooters be interested in helping to set up such a site?
Do note that it requires active participation of all members on this forum and else where to fill up the place with content.
I can provide the webspace (in fact, the wiki has already been set up), all I need is user participation.
Do let me know.
Thank you!
Creation of a Common Shooting Resource
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
Jose Rossy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:17 am
- Location: Troy, Ohio, USA
-
JulianY
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: A british shooting refugee in Amsterdam
- Contact:
I think that I should clarify my reason for suggesting wikipedia;
Wikipedia has 3 things 1) credibility 2)popularity 3)a significant infrastructure
The would significantly increase the audience. The credibility would help with copy right issues etc. we could for example suggest that we incorporate Don Nygord's work and give it a perminant home. I know for one I have made a print out of his valuable stuff just in case! and there are others.
The thoughts continue.
BTW which wiki are you thinking of using ?
Julian
Wikipedia has 3 things 1) credibility 2)popularity 3)a significant infrastructure
The would significantly increase the audience. The credibility would help with copy right issues etc. we could for example suggest that we incorporate Don Nygord's work and give it a perminant home. I know for one I have made a print out of his valuable stuff just in case! and there are others.
The thoughts continue.
BTW which wiki are you thinking of using ?
Julian
-
Bill Poole
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:50 pm
- Location: Scottsdale, AZ
- Contact:
another advantage of Wikipedia is that is it is very "readable", most everything I have read is very easy to read and comprehend
There is an issue with Wikipedia, that has been brought up on this very forum by a distinguished university professor. Acedemia has spent 1000 years developing very systematic techniques for peer-reviewing publication to ensure credibility (in their eyes) and accuracy (in their eyes) and Wikipedia's submission and "peer review" process is very very open source, that means one of us inputs something and many of us read it and suggest corrections. For something like the hobby specialty of competition shooting that level of peer review is in all likelyhood better (in our eyes) than acedemia's method, or that of a commercial publishing company, but it does not meet the level expected by acedemia.
Although there is a wealth of information on the subject of shooting, almost all of it is hobbyists empirical observations and opinions. I doubt there is much of anything about competition shooting as a sport generated in the western world or in english that is scientific to the level expected by acedemia (or military scientific analysis).
Also For some topic that is obscure and subject to diverse opinions, the wiki concept is open to one-sided-ness (the only guy to post something posts only his own opinion about it), for something popular and subject to diverse opinions, an open source wiki seems like an invitation to a spam war. I'm not sure how wikipedia handles this issue.
Also, wikipedia has an advantage and disadvantage for us. It is a highly visible first choice resource to the PUBLIC, so the first article they read MUST be something that introduces our sport to the public in a readable fashion, not a detailed analysis of the relative benefits of 6:00 hold vs sub 6 vs center hold or any of the dozens of things we discuss on forums like this one. WE should make sure we review and correct the public introductory articles on wikipedia so that they are correct (in our eyes). But for the level of detail we share here on TT, Wikipedia might not be the right place.
Another issue is, it takes a ton of work to write something and make it presentable.... I've spent years running a website about shooting and it is no where near as high a quality and quantity of material as I wish I could make it. Most of us have a few minutes here and their to post something on TT, but we want to spend hours shooting or reloading, not writing a book.
Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/
There is an issue with Wikipedia, that has been brought up on this very forum by a distinguished university professor. Acedemia has spent 1000 years developing very systematic techniques for peer-reviewing publication to ensure credibility (in their eyes) and accuracy (in their eyes) and Wikipedia's submission and "peer review" process is very very open source, that means one of us inputs something and many of us read it and suggest corrections. For something like the hobby specialty of competition shooting that level of peer review is in all likelyhood better (in our eyes) than acedemia's method, or that of a commercial publishing company, but it does not meet the level expected by acedemia.
Although there is a wealth of information on the subject of shooting, almost all of it is hobbyists empirical observations and opinions. I doubt there is much of anything about competition shooting as a sport generated in the western world or in english that is scientific to the level expected by acedemia (or military scientific analysis).
Also For some topic that is obscure and subject to diverse opinions, the wiki concept is open to one-sided-ness (the only guy to post something posts only his own opinion about it), for something popular and subject to diverse opinions, an open source wiki seems like an invitation to a spam war. I'm not sure how wikipedia handles this issue.
Also, wikipedia has an advantage and disadvantage for us. It is a highly visible first choice resource to the PUBLIC, so the first article they read MUST be something that introduces our sport to the public in a readable fashion, not a detailed analysis of the relative benefits of 6:00 hold vs sub 6 vs center hold or any of the dozens of things we discuss on forums like this one. WE should make sure we review and correct the public introductory articles on wikipedia so that they are correct (in our eyes). But for the level of detail we share here on TT, Wikipedia might not be the right place.
Another issue is, it takes a ton of work to write something and make it presentable.... I've spent years running a website about shooting and it is no where near as high a quality and quantity of material as I wish I could make it. Most of us have a few minutes here and their to post something on TT, but we want to spend hours shooting or reloading, not writing a book.
Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/
-
titantoppler
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:02 am
Hello people.
I'm glad that there is some level of interest.
The reason I am suggesting hosting the wiki on a private site, as opposed to Wikipedia, is because hosting it on a private website gives shooters a higher level of control over the content.
I am proposing that the administration of users be something like this:
A registered user can invite someone else to join, but an anonymous user cannot sign up on his/her own. By building this web of trust, I think the number of spammers would decrease significantly.
Hence the content in the website would be of a higher quality, as opposed to Wikipedia, where anyone can edit the page.
However, I am open to suggestions as to how to set up the website.
Thanks!
I'm glad that there is some level of interest.
The reason I am suggesting hosting the wiki on a private site, as opposed to Wikipedia, is because hosting it on a private website gives shooters a higher level of control over the content.
I am proposing that the administration of users be something like this:
A registered user can invite someone else to join, but an anonymous user cannot sign up on his/her own. By building this web of trust, I think the number of spammers would decrease significantly.
Hence the content in the website would be of a higher quality, as opposed to Wikipedia, where anyone can edit the page.
However, I am open to suggestions as to how to set up the website.
Thanks!
-
JulianY
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: A british shooting refugee in Amsterdam
- Contact:
Bill makes some very valid points and naturally the content of any wiki is only as good as the community that creates it. lets go with the private wiki idea to start with.
I have been through a lot of this kind of thing in the past. I used to be the maintainer of the carp-l fishing groups FAQ in the days when mailing lists were popular. That beast grew to just under 40,000 words. Most of which I wrote with the help of a few others.
As with all things there are diverse opinions among us. I think that description of techniques etc should be presented. We will find that some people favor one technique over another. But that should not mean the other is not described. And some of it is bound to be subjective.
We can only tell how far we get if we start. We could also ask pilkguns if we could have an extra forum to discuses wiki issues and keep them off the main page. Pilkguns may even grant us permission incorporate some of their information and I for one don’t mind if we have them and TT on the front page.
I am very much in favor of using mediawiki which is the same software as wikipedia. Most people are familiar with the style of wikipedia. I use mediawiki for the documentation of two opensource projects which I run and find the new user are instantly able to use the site as they are already familiar with the interface.
I will be happy to donate any text I have as well as any photographs, and perhaps even take pictures on demand if possible.
Titantoppler Ill drop you a private message with my email address so you can keep in direct contact and let me know how I can be of help
Julian
I have been through a lot of this kind of thing in the past. I used to be the maintainer of the carp-l fishing groups FAQ in the days when mailing lists were popular. That beast grew to just under 40,000 words. Most of which I wrote with the help of a few others.
As with all things there are diverse opinions among us. I think that description of techniques etc should be presented. We will find that some people favor one technique over another. But that should not mean the other is not described. And some of it is bound to be subjective.
We can only tell how far we get if we start. We could also ask pilkguns if we could have an extra forum to discuses wiki issues and keep them off the main page. Pilkguns may even grant us permission incorporate some of their information and I for one don’t mind if we have them and TT on the front page.
I am very much in favor of using mediawiki which is the same software as wikipedia. Most people are familiar with the style of wikipedia. I use mediawiki for the documentation of two opensource projects which I run and find the new user are instantly able to use the site as they are already familiar with the interface.
I will be happy to donate any text I have as well as any photographs, and perhaps even take pictures on demand if possible.
Titantoppler Ill drop you a private message with my email address so you can keep in direct contact and let me know how I can be of help
Julian
-
titantoppler
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:02 am
Hello people,
The wiki is set up, and can be found at http://www.metaforix.net/shooting. It is a default install, so everything, including the logo, is the default.
Please contribute to this resource for the better of the shooting community. Sign ups are enabled for the time being.
Thank you
:)
The wiki is set up, and can be found at http://www.metaforix.net/shooting. It is a default install, so everything, including the logo, is the default.
Please contribute to this resource for the better of the shooting community. Sign ups are enabled for the time being.
Thank you
:)
-
titantoppler
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:02 am
Hi,
I'm open to suggestions, though I think by covering a wider base it would be more useful to everyone involved.
To be honest, I'm quite out of my depth here when it comes to content, because I've only shot in 2 disciplines before, 10m Air Rifle and 10m Air Pistol, and currently only 10m Air Pistol exclusively.
Hence, I'm appealing for everyone to contribute extensively to this wiki.
Thank you!
P.S. In case Steve Swartz, Ed Hall et al don't see this thread, do you people think it's fine if we incorporate their posts into the wiki as well, since their posts are usually very insightful?
I'm open to suggestions, though I think by covering a wider base it would be more useful to everyone involved.
To be honest, I'm quite out of my depth here when it comes to content, because I've only shot in 2 disciplines before, 10m Air Rifle and 10m Air Pistol, and currently only 10m Air Pistol exclusively.
Hence, I'm appealing for everyone to contribute extensively to this wiki.
Thank you!
P.S. In case Steve Swartz, Ed Hall et al don't see this thread, do you people think it's fine if we incorporate their posts into the wiki as well, since their posts are usually very insightful?
-
Steve Swartz
I'm not a big fan of the "Wiki" concept in general; however, I have posted my thoughts in the "semi-public domain" (Scott's hosted web board) and stand by my work published here.
You have my permission to use any of the content of my posts to Target Talk; however, please respect my intellectual property rights and properly attribute my content to me.
I haven't decided what my level of participation in your effort will be; I'll let you know if I want to take a more active role in the future.
Thanks
Steve Swartz
You have my permission to use any of the content of my posts to Target Talk; however, please respect my intellectual property rights and properly attribute my content to me.
I haven't decided what my level of participation in your effort will be; I'll let you know if I want to take a more active role in the future.
Thanks
Steve Swartz
-
Ed Hall
My response can be considered an echo of Steve's. I feel pretty much the same way, but in my case I also maintain a couple of sights with my stuff already referenced there, including a page that catalogs (almost) all my posts to TargetTalk and other pages for other fora I frequent.
I'm not sure how most of my material could be of value, but I will have to see what the sight looks like before I detemine my involvement. I suppose there is one way to ensure my "help." I get pretty irritated with some of the propagation of invalid and/or misquoted technical material on occasion and might jump in with all ten fingers if I happen to notice such mis-information. As an example of what I'm referring to, there are takedown instructions for the 1911 floating around that describe using the slide stop to disassemble the rest of the pistol, such as the mainspring pin and firing pin, when if you try, you will find the slide stop is too large to work.
Anyway, I have bookmarked the page and will be checking it frequently.
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
I'm not sure how most of my material could be of value, but I will have to see what the sight looks like before I detemine my involvement. I suppose there is one way to ensure my "help." I get pretty irritated with some of the propagation of invalid and/or misquoted technical material on occasion and might jump in with all ten fingers if I happen to notice such mis-information. As an example of what I'm referring to, there are takedown instructions for the 1911 floating around that describe using the slide stop to disassemble the rest of the pistol, such as the mainspring pin and firing pin, when if you try, you will find the slide stop is too large to work.
Anyway, I have bookmarked the page and will be checking it frequently.
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
-
JulianY
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:26 am
- Location: A british shooting refugee in Amsterdam
- Contact:
On the Up side Michaes Ray of http://www.rose-hulman.edu/sports/rifle.htm have give his permission to use images an text from his website. He has some nice pictures which will help illustrate articles
Julian
Julian
-
Ed Hall
Hmm... I just stumbled onto this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:H ... ing_sports
Looks like a lot of the Iinternational disciplines are covered...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:H ... ing_sports
Looks like a lot of the Iinternational disciplines are covered...
Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shooting_sports which provides a link to the handgun category as well as many others.