Wiki Jawaka: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

[emdebe]

I think maybe it is time to put together an inventory about the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY of the Wiki Jawaka.

The purpose of this inventory would be to find out what is keeping people from contributing en mass.
In other words: what can we possibly improve to attract more ants (read: helpful brains, hands and feet)?

What do we think is GOOD, BAD or UGLY about the Wiki Jawaka?

Is it good because it is about Frank Zappa?
Is it good because its intentions are good?
Is it bad because of the way it is implemented?
Is it bad because it lacks ease-of-use?
Is it ugly because of its run of the mill layout (except for the logo, of course)?
Is it good because of the helpfulness of its Founding Fathers?
...

Let’s start a new thread about this, so that the VOX POPULI can speak-out now...

... OR... (fill-in-the-blanks)

[emdebe]

It will be a pleasure to incorporate all suggestions made to improve the accessibility of, and the process of contributing to the Wiki Jawaka.  

[emdebe]

Do I have to translate all questions in French?

Is there a moratorium against emdebe?

Barry, maybe YOU should rephrase the question.

[Barry]

Do I have to translate all questions in French?
Is there a moratorium against emdebe?
Barry, maybe YOU should rephrase the question.

I think what emdebe's trying to ask is:
What do you think is good about the wiki, and where do you think it could be improved?

[Bálint]

Hi everybody,

embede:
No, there is not any moratoriums agains anybody, but there are peolpe who doesnt have too much time, are not brave enough to join, are not speaking english good enohg - but first of all: time, time, time...

The structure of the wiki is difficult, takes time to get used to it - and anyway: I myself made some suggestions here and there (about the pictures, about the structure...) but I thought THAT would be the best place to mention them, I didnt think of this thread.

*

My suggestions, notes, anyway:
(pro primo: The wiki IS GOOD, and amazing - I will make now some criticism, not because "I hate it" or anything like this, just to talk about them, just to make some comments)
- there are some names that are too difficult, or not too easy to understand, I think. For example the discography: 1 Alphabet Soup - 2 It's All History - 3 The Chronology - 4 How "Logical" is all this Stuff? - 5 ZAPPAMANIA! - they all sound fun, but sometimes not easy to find out, what's behind them. OK, one can guess, but... The "Table of content" is a place where everything must be simple and clear. And: the links themselves are on the far right side, while the titles on the left - it is not easy to surf this way.

- I already mentioned, that in some cases its not easy to go a place I'd like to. If you're at a song and want to go to the NEXT one on the album, it takes quite a few clicks. And: at some songs there isnt a link with its album, so its really difficult to get back to the "album" itself - you might even forget, from which album you came from.

- The main problem (as I see), that there are tons of "skeleton pages" now. I still think that it would be much better to make specific "projects", like the discography, the biography - and so on. Now there are lts of skeletons, and sometimes its not easy to find out what the author wanted with it, so its not easy to continue. There are main words and dates only in Biography - I dont know why. It should be written, it should be started, it should have an idea behind it - and then everyone could join and comment it.

_there I things I do not understand - going to 200 Motels (The film) I found The Real Frank Zappa Book (The List) - and now finally I understand what it is, but I dont understand why is it at 200 Motels, where is it's "homeplace", how else could I find it... And: it's also close to being a skeleton - like there are so many "lists" here in wiki. If you/we make tons of lists, the future contributors will not know where to join, what was the plan behind them...

The same with Geography: there are 185 (!!!) articles in this category, all with "living"links, but only one or two sentences about each place, so one cannot decide, which are empty, which is ready - unless one clicks on all of them....

- There should be pictures in the articles. How to do that?

*

Ohhh, I dont know how clear I was (dis englisch language!...), but the main thing I wanted to say, that the wiki would need more and more READY or almost ready articles, and less and less skeletons and left-there-in-half stuff, the wiki would need more simple namings, and the wiki would need more pictures.

The way I see it.

And again: it will be a long lasting work, so none of us should be inpatient - we should all just keep up the good work!!!

B

[Barry]

- there are some names [/i] that are too difficult, or not too easy to understand, I think. For example the discography: 1 Alphabet Soup - 2 It's All History - 3 The Chronology - 4 How "Logical" is all this Stuff? - 5 ZAPPAMANIA! - they all sound fun, but sometimes not easy to find out, what's behind them

Well, to be honest, I'm not too happy with those titles myself - I think emdebe is aware of this...

- I already mentioned, that in some cases its not easy to go a place I'd like to. If you're at a song and want to go to the NEXT one on the album, it takes quite a few clicks. And: at some songs there isnt a link with its album, so its really difficult to get back to the "album" itself - you might even forget, from which album you came from.

I understand the navigational problem here, but, with all due respect, regard it as a minor problem - at this stage.

- The main problem (as I see), that there are tons of "skeleton pages" now. I still think that it would be much better to make specific "projects", like the discography, the biography - and so on. Now there are lts of skeletons, and sometimes its not easy to find out what the author wanted with it, so its not easy to continue. There are main words and dates only in Biography - I dont know why. It should be written, it should be started, it should have an idea behind it - and then everyone could join and comment it.

Very good point. We started out trying to set up as much preliminary structure as we possibly could, so as to prevent any structural problems later. Now we're getting into a stage where pretty much of the structure (skeleton) is present, but... we sort of put the content in second place. Time to turn that around, I think.

_there I things I do not understand - going to 200 Motels (The film) I found The Real Frank Zappa Book (The List) - and now finally I understand what it is, but I dont understand why is it at 200 Motels, where is it's "homeplace", how else could I find it... And: it's also close to being a skeleton - like there are so many "lists" here in wiki. If you/we make tons of lists, the future contributors will not know where to join, what was the plan behind them...

Those are part of emdebe's "works in progress" - I'd reckon that's a question for him to shed light upon...

- There should be pictures in the articles. How to do that?

Aaaah pictures! Everybody wants images on the wiki! I've sort of held the boat off on that one because I'm not sure if I'm going to have enough bandwidth/disc space. But hey, can't keep that up forever. So as of now it is possible to upload images (see the "Upload file" link in the toolbox to the left of the pages). But please: use this feature responsibly and don't go uploading anything just for the heck of it... We'll also have to establish certain rules for certain uploads, particularly for album covers, for instance. I'd say album cover images should be about 150x150px - and we should stick to those dimensions. Also: do not upload .html or .php files - it won't work. Lastly: do not upload any sound-files as they take up a lot of space (not to mention bandwidth concerns with every time someone downloads that file).

The way I see it.
And again: it will be a long lasting work, so none of us should be inpatient - we should all just keep up the good work!!!

Right you are Sir!

[emdebe]

The main problem (as I see), that there are tons of "skeleton pages" now. I still think that it would be much better to make specific "projects", like the discography, the biography - and so on. Now there are lts of skeletons, and sometimes its not easy to find out what the author wanted with it, so its not easy to continue. There are main words and dates only in Biography - I dont know why. It should be written, it should be started, it should have an idea behind it - and then everyone could join and comment it.

Very good point. We started out trying to set up as much preliminary structure as we possibly could, so as to prevent any structural problems later. Now we're getting into a stage where pretty much of the structure (skeleton) is present, but... we sort of put the content in second place. Time to turn that around, I think.

Good point indeed. I (and I think I could say "we") was convinced that a "skeleton" actually would help people put things in place... Apparently I ("we") were wrong... However, the problem is: it's there... It would be crazy to delete all that stuff, wouldn't it? So, I ("we") can only ask to be patient, or at least not impatient... and these (luxury?) "problems" will go away...

And yes, maybe every once in a while we should focus on something, instead of running around in many different (but not wrong) directions... Time for a "Discography Week" or "Biography Week"?

[emdebe]

_there I things I do not understand - going to 200 Motels (The film) I found The Real Frank Zappa Book (The List) - and now finally I understand what it is, but I dont understand why is it at 200 Motels, where is it's "homeplace", how else could I find it... And: it's also close to being a skeleton - like there are so many "lists" here in wiki. If you/we make tons of lists, the future contributors will not know where to join, what was the plan behind them...

Those are part of emdebe's "works in progress" - I'd reckon that's a question for him to shed light upon...

Some people could argue that I'm obsessed with all these lists... People who are mentioned on the "Freak Out!" cover, people who are pictured in the "We're Only In It For The Money" cover art, ... Well, probably I am.... I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but maybe it came at the wrong time... Maybe I could have concentrated on the Discography first...

Sometimes, when I referenced someone or something, the "article" was already in place. Sometimes, like in the case of "200 Motels (The Film)", it wasn't. And that is why, you see only a reference to TRFZB, because it was mentioned in there. When I look at it now, the least I've could have done, is give some structure to the page, so that it looked less daunting...

Again, with a little patience, these (luxury?) "problems" will go away...

[emdebe]

- there are some names [/i] that are too difficult, or not too easy to understand, I think. For example the discography: 1 Alphabet Soup - 2 It's All History - 3 The Chronology - 4 How "Logical" is all this Stuff? - 5 ZAPPAMANIA! - they all sound fun, but sometimes not easy to find out, what's behind them

Well, to be honest, I'm not too happy with those titles myself - I think emdebe is aware of this...

These names were meant to be "funny", at least sort-of "informal", and yes, I'm aware that they could be misleading or confusing... although not to me...  

I will take one step back and see what I can do about it.

[emdebe]

No, there is not any moratoriums agains anybody, but there are peolpe who doesnt have too much time, are not brave enough to join, are not speaking english good enohg - but first of all: time, time, time...

Father, I have a confession to make: apparently, not everyone is going at the same speed, and some of us, including myself, are going too fast.

The thing is: as long as nobody is "complaining" (or at least shouting "not so fast!"), we just roll along... Occasionally we look back and we see that not too many people are following...

Does this mean that they can't follow, or does it mean that they have no intention to follow?

I'm glad that, finally, we heard an honest voice, so that we can re-think some of the things we were doing... I just wish, more people would speak-out...

[emdebe]

The structure of the wiki is difficult, takes time to get used to it...

I think navigation has improved since Barry implemented the "navigation bar" on the left-hand side of the screen...

Maybe we can do one better, if we just put a nice picture of FZ on the "Main Page", and then offer 2 ways to enter the Wiki Jawaka, 1 for "normal" people, and 1 for "hardcore" people...

Something like:

* Zappa The Hard Way
* Zappa The Soft Way

or:

* Do You Like Foreplay?
* Shove It Right In...

or:

* The Easy Way In
* The Hard Way In

or:

whatever gets the message through...

The "hard way" would only list the bare essentials, while the "soft way" would "document" the many subsections extensively...

Just a thought...

[Barry]

Who will opt for a Hard Way when a Soft Way is available? You're over-theorizing this emdebe, methinks...

[Barry]

Very good point. We started out trying to set up as much preliminary structure as we possibly could, so as to prevent any structural problems later. Now we're getting into a stage where pretty much of the structure (skeleton) is present, but... we sort of put the content in second place. Time to turn that around, I think.

Good point indeed. I (and I think I could say "we") was convinced that a "skeleton" actually would help people put things in place... Apparently I ("we") were wrong...

No we were not wrong. The structure needed to be layed out first. It's just that, now that we've more or less accomplished this, we're entering Phaze II, where the addition of actual content needs to be our primary concern.

However, the problem is: it's there... It would be crazy to delete all that stuff, wouldn't it? So, I ("we") can only ask to be patient, or at least not impatient... and these (luxury?) "problems" will go away...

It (the structure) is there and it should remain there! I think a collective pat on the back to all of us working on the wiki is in order. We've successfully avoided pitfall number one: total chaos. Now, on to the next pitfall...

And yes, maybe every once in a while we should focus on something, instead of running around in many different (but not wrong) directions... Time for a "Discography Week" or "Biography Week"?

Well everybody (myself included) seems to be steering clear of the Biography section so far. Maybe this could be the first of a whole bunch of sections that we collectively decide to work on?

[Bálint]

I think "skeletons" are good - if their content are left empty, then the link is red (or what), thus anyone might know whether there is content behind it or not. So: skeletons are good, but putting only 1 or 2 words in them or categories or wathever is not so good - this way no one knows where we are, what to continue, etc. I thinks.

[Barry]

I think "skeletons" are good - if their content are left empty, then the link is red (or what), thus anyone might know whether there is content behind it or not. So: skeletons are good, but putting only 1 or 2 words in them or categories or wathever is not so good - this way no one knows where we are, what to continue, etc. I thinks.

Balint, I agree. Personally I never create an article solely to be able to label it under a certain category - without adding anything more. It makes life considerably harder for other contributors to decide which articles need creation/completion/additions if every link in the wiki is blue instead of red. More often than not it leads to the false assumption that "there is already something there, so there's no need to have a look".