REPLY
Well I just saw one thing about these wiki based sites that got me
wondering.
Someone else mentioned the same issue with reference to T&T and Jefery's
suggestion.

I found myself quoted extensively on the AC section. No credit and no
indication from where it came.
Yet it contained some very personal experience observations about starting
air conditioners. I'm willing to bet no one else ever tried tha texpeiment.
If a reader wanted to question thii and get more details, there is no way
they can connect with the original author (in this case me) and ask
questions.

Secondly, its one thing for someone to knowingly contribute content to a
website. However in this case the author/editor of the website has chosen to
seed the project core with contributions ( quoted from T&T by the look of
it) without asking the original author or of letting them know. I don't know
if Georgs was contacted on this matter.
I realize we do not have copyright or any intellectual rights on anything
posted in a public forum like T&T but I think that particular wiki feature
has the potential for abuse. Suppose someone recognizes part of a post from
someone, but meanwhile another peson has altered it in a way that discredits
the original author. They may assume the whole paragraph  including changes
was originated by the first writer.

I am not complaining. Had the website originator asked me I would have given
my permission.
However I am concerned with integrity and validity of the facts presented.
At least with T&T we know who said what and there is a means of going back
to the originator and following up.
And if mis-information is posted we have a way of challenging the claims
made; and to correct facts that are misleading or completely wrong. Same
thing applies to every other forum I participate in.

regards
Arild

Actually, Arild, you do own the copy right to anything that you write. Its
an automatic thing that is already entrenched in common law.

Rob

At 05:36 PM 5/6/2007 -0700, Arild Jensen wrote:

REPLY
I thought that only applied within your own country or signatories to some
kind of international convention.

But if that is the case, then I see some future problems with the anonymous
wiki process.

cheers
Arild

I had a similar experience last week. We were in Solomons, MD and I was in
one of the marina offices talking to them, etc. They had free issues of the
latest Waterway Guide magazine so I grabbed one and brought it back to the
boat. That night I'm flipping through the magazine and imagine my surprise
when I saw my name, my boat name, and a quote from a T&T posting that I
made last fall. No one ever asked my permission or even let me know it was
being published - I would have bought 5 copies for my mother. No one made
sure it was really me who even wrote the quote (I can make a posting look
like it came from anyone I wanted).

The bottom line...taking content has little to do with wiki's...

...Jeff
M/V aCappella
Leaving Salem, MA at 6am Monday to finally reach Maine (THAT you can quote!)

REPLY
Agreed Jeff! However what does go to the heart of the wiki situation is
"Credibility" and integrity of data.
Of what value is a wiki site if you cannot trust the validity of the data?
Wikipedia had a major foofara recently over the revelation that one of their
editors lied about his credentials.

Your original post dealt with the value of the collective wisdom of our many
posters and the worth of their experience.
If you cannot trust the veracity of the posted facts, the collection of data
is worthless or at best highly suspect.

At least no one has the ability to edit the archived post from the Samurai
website as far as I know.
And if we want to question some post, we know who originated it.

cheers

Arild

REPLY
The whole field of copyright, intellectual property and electronic
transmision of data is undergoing a revolution much reater than the
development of the printing pres.

While preparing a textbook for Canadian Powrer and Sail Squadrons on GPS
usage, I found much valuable data on the USCG  website.  There is a
prominent notice stating the data is in the public domain.
In the book I indicated that the USCG has the following to say on the
subject. That served notice of the originator data, and provided
credibility.

Someone informed our national HQ that I had violated copyright and
plagerized some German website.  ??????
When I looked at the named website I saw they had also copied the USCG data
and even indicated where they had got the information.  However they had
also published a copyright notice of their website.
The person who informed HQ of the alleged copyright violation evidently
figured the copyrihgt notice covered everything on the website including
data coming from public domain sources.

There is a prevalent notion by many people that anything published on the
internet nust be true.
Okay so some of us know better, but what about the rest of the people?

And how about the proliferation in plagerism among students under pressure
to produce acceptable school paper or worse, graduate work thesis papers.
We are only seeing the beginnings of the problem.  Stay tuned!  <smile>

cheers
Arild

Again, no one has suggested that the conversational nature of T&T should go
away. The only thing suggested has been a reference place where the
community of interested trawler people could create an organized location
where topics could be presented in place and discussions suppounding a
particular topic would stay connected to the topic.

The subject of credibility comes up with all public information. This is
true whether it is an email collection, a wiki page, or a 40 year veteran
news anchor speaking live on a national news program. On T&T there isn't
much more than self-proclaimed experts. There are no jurried postings and
plenty of the "facts" presented in postings are flat out wrong.

As one non-trawler example, someone answered my wiki suggestion last week
with a message saying that the Wikipedia software is too expensive to use.
Not to pick on this "fact" but it was completely wrong. The software is
free. The issue is that the posting about that incorrect "fact" will now
exist in the T&T archives forever. It can't be removed (even if it can,
Google has it in its archive now - try to get them to remove it). Now when
this posting was made, I followed up with a posting saying that it wasn't
true. That posting is in there too but it is loosely connected. Maybe my
reply changed the subject by adding an extra "Re:". Or maybe when searching
on that information my rebuttal doesn't come up. Even worse, what if there
were 20 postings about that subject. Or 200?

Conversations are important but there comes a point where there is a
consensus or well described different points of view. That is impossible to
document with threads of individual postings.

There is the idea that a wiki must document specific facts and single
points of view. That isn't correct. The real value is providing multiple
points of view in one place, tightly connected together. In addition,
almost all wiki's have "discussion" sections associated with each page
where non-edited opinions can be placed to give additional flavor. The
"fact" sections should be edited by a group charged with attempting to
create quality information. This can most certainly be abused by
individuals but not very easily by the entire group.

There have been stellar errors found in Wikipedia - that's true. It misses
the point though. When an error is found in Wikipedia it can be corrected
immediately. Try that with Encyclopedia Britanica which contains plenty of
errors too. Ultimately it is up to the community to police the quality of
material. That's why it would work for us to do it.

...Jeff
M/V aCappella
Currently 15 nm offshore Merrimack River heading behind Isles of Shoals and
onto Casco Bay, Maine

The real value is providing multiple

REPLY
Thanks for the explanation Jeff.  Consistent with list rules , I have
snipped extraneous text.
By so doing I have made subtle but significant change and if I was inept in
my editing I may have distorted your intented meaning.  I think this
highlights one of the ongoing challenges facing any editorial committee.

I'm still mulling over in my own mind if your wiki concept would make a
large difference and greatly improve the quality of the T&T information.
I'm certainly not opposed to it in principle. I am merely wondering it it
will provide a huge gain in percieved value compared to the existing google
search methods suggested by list members. Googling the archives provides the
full content, warts and all.

In this post it is obvious that I am the editing person of your original
content. Not so with the anonymous wiki approach.
It is going to take the collected wisdom of many of us to resolve the
limitations and potential mis directions of the new technology.

Cheers
Arild