[KellieCM]

Hi All --

We are thinking of re-naming the Documents portion of our community to something that is more fitting the intention and function of the feature. We couldn't decide what we liked better, so we decided to ask all of you.

Do you like "Documents" (what it is now)? What about "Wikis"? Or "Knowledge Base"? Maybe "Tips"?

Please tell us which of these labels you like best, and why. It would also be useful for us to know if you do/do not understand what documents are for and how to use them.

Thanks!

[KellieCM]

Interesting, thank you for the input.

Did you know that anyone can edit a document now? I guess what I'm asking is if you were unaware of the feature, or if you were aware but a name change would have made you feel more comfortable in using it.

BTW, we turned off the need to submit it to me for acceptance. We're giving it a whirl that way to see if it boosts document creation without adding a lot of hassle for the moderators.

[Flashorn]

Hey Kellie! I did a piece the other day and Adama suggested that it be turned in to a document. I wasn't sure it had enough pertinent info. and to personal,not document like, so I was waiting to see if anyone would "add" to my post. But now If you would rename it to a Wiki, I would have submitted my post, that way other members could add to what I or anyone else started. They would still have to submit to you for acceptance but, I feel this is a good idea on getting the best possible info. on any subject. This is my opinion on a very good idea.



FLASHORN.

[smax013]

kellie said:

Interesting, thank you for the input.

Did you know that anyone can edit a document now? I guess what I'm asking is if you were unaware of the feature, or if you were aware but a name change would have made you feel more comfortable in using it.

I suspect that is the case with a lot of people right now. As such, calling them Wikis might help in that area. The term Document seems more "official" and "static".

kellie said:

BTW, we turned off the need to submit it to me for acceptance. We're giving it a whirl that way to see if it boosts document creation without adding a lot of hassle for the moderators.

I think this might be good thing. The "acceptance" bit always implied that someone would review and edit content to make it more "correct" before it became public. If you want it to be more of Wiki type environment, then it needs to be a little more self regulating, I think, rather than purely having "hall monitors". This is not to say that you and the moderators should not monitor stuff to make sure it is consistant with the community rules...but the content (assuming in line with community rules) should be monitored and corrected by the members if you want it to be Wikis.

[Flashorn]

Hey Kellie! Actually, I wasn't aware anyone could edit a DOC. But I'm in the know now.As for the name, Yes, you are right, I would only submit a document if I had ALL of the information to fully instruct some one on doing something right the first time. I guess that's how I learned to work. Being in the accounting section at my work there is no place for mistakes. (If you want to keep your job for any length of time). As we, the members, are , for the most part , doing this forum help on a part time basis, I feel that the info submitted should be verified by someone in the know. There are thousands of people looking this info. over instead of asking on the main forum. and if any info is incorrect it may lead to disaster. But if you feel confident enough to give this a try well, I will do my best to be as helpful as I can be.



FLASHORN.

[KellieCM]

Thanks for the explanation. When the author writes a document, the collaboration options are set by default so that any registered user can edit the document. The author can change that, but I don't recommend it.

I never checked the documents for technical accuracy (as you all are way smarter than me on this stuff, anyway). I just checked to make sure it wasn't against the community standards. So there's nothing really lost here.

Other opinions?

[smax013]

kellie said:

I never checked the documents for technical accuracy (as you all are way smarter than me on this stuff, anyway). I just checked to make sure it wasn't against the community standards. So there's nothing really lost here.

Other opinions?

And that is why I think removing the acceptance process is like a good thing. I suspect that the common assumption was that the acceptance was part and parcel of checking technical accuracy. There was an implication there, whether intended or not. FWIW, I did not believe that you were checking for technical accuracy, but can see where some might assume that just do to the implication of an "approval". Even if you did know all the stuff need to always check for technical accuracy, you would likely be inundated with so much "checking" that you would never have a chance to update/monitor the forum and do your other functions! :D

[Adama]

I like the idea of renaming them "Wikis" like Smax says, it doesn't sound as official. So, I think that's a great idea, Kellie. :D


However, I do not like the idea of anybody going in there and nilly-willy, changing anything that I write. When I write a Document, I work very hard to make sure that my information is correct, as I always follow the steps I'm putting forth for other people. Perhaps there could be an option so that the author of the Document would have a say whether or not to allow someone to edit/change anything in his/her document.

Also, a few months ago, when I tried to help Smax with just a little editing, his document options got all messed up and ended up looking like it was my document, rather than his. He waited a long time for his Document to be published but it didn't show up anywhere, for several weeks. So, I don't think that Smax is going to let me edit his Documents again, any time soon. :(

[smax013]

Adama said:

However, I do not like the idea of anybody going in there and nilly-willy, changing anything that I write. When I write a Document, I work very hard to make sure that my information is correct, as I always follow the steps I'm putting forth for other people. Perhaps there could be an option so that the author of the Document would have a say whether or not to allow someone to edit/change anything in his/her document.


Also, a few months ago, when I tried to help Smax with just a little editing, his document options got all messed up and ended up looking like it was my document, rather than his. He waited a long time for his Document to be published but it didn't show up anywhere, for several weeks. So, I don't think that Smax is going to let me edit his Documents again, any time soon. :(

This will depend on how many tools are built into the wiki portion of the forum software that allows for "reverting" to older versions and such. I believe that sites like Wikipedia have fairly useful/powerful ways to deal with corrections and the ability to revert. If the forum software has similar abilities, then it should not be much of an issue.



Besides, I will note that if you have your documents set to allow anyone to edit it right now, then I don't believe [~2001] was monitoring changes other than for compliance with community standards. Thus, even with her "approving" Documents, it was still up to YOU to monitor the document to make sure no body changed it in a way that you did not feel was correct. I believe she was not doing any such "checking". Thus, removing the approval process should not impact your issue at all.



And I don't see why I would not have you edit a Document that I created. It was not a problem due to you (other than you having the gall to criticize my work ;) the nerve of some people :D ) but an issue with the way the software handled things potentially in combination with my lack of understanding of how the forum software handled things.

[Yert]

Wikis sounds too unprofesional though...

How about Community Chest? Or if thats violating a trademark, Community Knowledge?

Or...

PCWorld Community Wiki or lite documentation To inform people sometimes (PCWorld Tips)
Howto On pcWorld Typical prOblemS (HowTos)
Artfully Re-edited Practical Net-knowhow Extreme Tips (ARPNET)
Rightfully Answered ProblemS Honestly and EarnEsTly (Rapsheet)
Tactfully Informitive PageS (Tips)

Or use all of those, getting the first letter from each...

[mphenterprises]

Personally, I like the term "document." However, it really does not matter what terminology we use. Some people like the formal sound of document. Some people like the informal sound of Wiki. The one suggestion I would have is that the (whatevers) are grouped in a more defined order. There are over 200 (whatevers) and I am sure there are some (whatevers) that can should be in a subgroup of their own.

[AuroraDizon]

Hm, I like knowledge base, but it doesn't seem to refer to a particular document. Perhaps a series of documents indexed together somehow arranged could be the PCWorld knowledge base. Wiki personally is overused.

[SpiritWind]

:D Hi :

In every other Forum I visit, such "Posts" are called "Sticky(s)", though I wil admit they are all security-oriented Ones.

[KellieCM]

Hi Spirit,

I really see our documents and the traditional "sticky" posts to be different. Our documents are meant to be more of a knowledge base of how-to content. Sticky posts are usually announcements or something that is often asked and we want to keep track of.

We're going to try "Wiki Document" and see how that goes. We're open to changing it again if it doesn't work.