TCCWiki and you - new drug information wiki

[Shadowstar]

As with all these formats, the issue is one of quality and accuracy of information. How have you addressed this?

One suggestion is to do kind of what you've done here. Try to recruit some experts. BilZ0r is certainty a good choice, but how directly have you asked for his assistance? By starting this thread? Do you have anyone else you could get to help you? Who else has signed on to the project at this point?

Quality and accuracy will come together as the community grows. It works the same way as Wikipedia. If you have questions about this feel free to check out their informational pages.

Invitations is exactly how I plan on making this project grow. We have a few hundred knowledgable (but mostly lazy) users from our forum already on board as well as a couple experts from Wikipedia, The Shroomery, and Lycaeum. I'm hoping that as this project slowly grows and gains recognition things will continue to come together.

A wiki is by nature an organic process. It's not a matter of "have I gotten together experts yet." It's a questions of whether it's attracting experts at all, which it seems to be (slowly). If you think the wiki needs improvement then just log in and get to work yourself! If there were twenty people doing something on the wiki every single day I think you can imagine how quickly everything could come together.

Finally, there is an invitations subproject on the wiki (found in the community portal) specifically addressing this issue. So far I'm the only one updating it, but the idea is to gradually spread the word in various forums and to personally invite notable authors/journalists/researchers once the wiki is more active on a regular basis. It's sort of a catch-22. More active users would attract experts. More experts would attract more active users. The only solution is this: If you believe this project can work, then join in right now! There isn't any other way. Somebody has to help out with the first few steps. That is why I am making these threads on various forums. Once the snowball gets rolling, it's only a matter of time.

 

[TheDEA.org]

By encouraging trip reports, you take them away from erowid, and I don't think that's good.

Am I the only one driven nuts by their color scheme (tan text on a black background)?

Anyway...

I'm not convinced that the Wiki layout provides the best interface for something like this, although that's a relatively technical quibble.

More seriously, what exactly is the point of this thing? Experiences and how-to's (building a bong, etc.) are perfectly welcome at Erowid. What added value do you bring to the table? Why should anybody care that you might have, for instance, mushroom growing information when there's the Shroomery? Why should anybody care that you have a bunch of articles copied from Wikipedia when there's the real thing?

Maybe it could be great with enough work, but right now it's not worth visiting.

It's sort of a catch-22. More active users would attract experts. More experts would attract more active users.

I'd say the latter is far more important. The real, genuine talent out there is thinly spread and doesn't necessarily want to work for a wiki. The format attracts small, even trivial works. Have you seen my site? I sure as hell wouldn't have created something that extensive just to hand it over anonymously to a wiki where any idiot with an impulse could hack it up. Communism tends to self-destruct because at the end of the day, people don't REALLY want everybody else to have equal control over what they've worked hard to produce.

Which brings us to another problem with wikis: Most people don't have worthwhile opinions. (This probably being one of the few forums I can safely say that in.) They have strong opinions, numerous opinions, opinions they want to share...but rarely worthwhile opinions. If you have genuinely excellent contributors, the democratic nature of wikis tends to degrade their work as lesser minds decide they want to 'contribute'. This is a particular problem among drug users, who tend to be younger, dumber, and yes, more likely to post while drunk or high than the general public.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. It's usually my first stop for information (albeit taking anything posted there with a huge grain of salt as far as accuracy and completeness goes). But it's not very well suited to producing large, substantive works, and if you're just looking to aggregate experiences and short articles, why compete with Erowid? What is the unique perspective or added value that you bring to the table that justified diluting information across yet another site?

If you were to ask me why I bothered to create a new drug information site when there were already plenty out there, I'd tell you that it's easy to navigate, comprehensive, thoroughly researched and documented, and speaks with a strong unified voice. The latter is the least obvious criteria, but I think it's an important one: My site, being the product of pretty much a single author, contains not just a collection of opinions, but an over-arching perspective that ties all the elements together. It's orchestrated information, not just aggregated information. There is a theme and a flow to it; a single work rather than a bunch of different works that just happened to end up together. One benefit of that is readability/organization. Another is authority/credibility. With a wiki, you just never know how carefully researched or written an item is. A reader may think I'm brilliant or they may think I'm an over-opinionated idiot, but they know who and what they're getting from paragraph to paragraph and page to page.

 

[Shadowstar]

It seems like you're raising a lot of similar points to those that BilZ0r raised, to which I already responded. I can try to summarize again, but I suggest you read everything I've written here closely as well, if you haven't already.

1) What added value do you bring to the table?
2) Why should anybody care that you might have, for instance, mushroom growing information when there's the Shroomery?
3)Why should anybody care that you have a bunch of articles copied from Wikipedia when there's the real thing?

1) Community, community community. We are trying to create a site that combines the great community discussion and information gathering of a forum like Blulight with a dynamic database that is very easy to navigate.

2) This question is really presumptuous and perhaps even intentionally missing the point. I think it best to respond with a queston: "Why should anybody care that there are threads about mushroom cultivation on Bluelight, when there's the Shroomery?" If it doesn't interest you, you don't have to go to that article/thread. As an all inclusive drug information community we would be remiss not to include such information. Try to keep in mind that this is partly about databasing information, yes, but it is also largely about the growing internet drug-researching community potentially coming together to work on an expansive community database of information.

3) I'm not here to say "look! We have an awesome drug site!" We've only been up for a few months, after all. I'm here trying to spread the word about this project so that people who are interested can come join and get to work on making into something so awesome that word will spread naturally. If you think it has potential, please come help out. If you're skeptical about getting involved until the community has grown that's fine too - it means you aren't the kind of person I'm trying to recruit with all this. I'm not asking you to visit! I'm asking you to come contribute during this early phase and perhaps even administrate! :D

Have you seen my site? I sure as hell wouldn't have created something that extensive just to hand it over anonymously to a wiki where any idiot with an impulse could hack it up. Communism tends to self-destruct because at the end of the day, people don't REALLY want everybody else to have equal control over what they've worked hard to produce.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. It's usually my first stop for information (albeit taking anything posted there with a huge grain of salt as far as accuracy and completeness goes).

You lost me with this together. You're a big fan of Wikipedia but you hate the wiki format and think it inevitably self destructs? From the first comment it sounds like perhaps you don't really want everybody else to have equal control over what you worked hard to produce, but most people who stick around and contribute a lot to Wikipedia and thost who are contributing to TCCWiki are really okay with it; it's unfair to generalize your feelings about your prose to everybody. Wikipedia is a fine example that this format can work. See the link at the bottom of this post for their response to this exact objection (and others).

It looks like there is a lot of value in your site. Without such static resources a wiki project would never be possible. I'm glad you put all the work into doing that. What we're trying to do with TCCWiki is really entirely different, you understand. We are trying to create a community space where everyone can work together on putting together the best articles possible. As far as authorship goes you can look through the history of every single edit of every article on mediawiki. That means you can see who wrote what, who added what references, etc. If you have any questions about what you are reading it is actually very accessible to find out where it all came from.

What is the unique perspective or added value that you bring to the table that justified diluting information across yet another site?

If you can't see this from everything I've written I'm not sure how much more I can help you. The beautiful thing about a wiki is that hundreds or thousands of people can work on it each day. It's a completely different category than Erowid. I could raise the same criticism toward Wikipedia, asking them why they don't just let the Britannica do it's job - but you yourself admit that it's a useful resource. It ultimately comes down to whether or not you appreciate the potential evolution in information sharing that comes along with the wiki format, which it sounds like you don't. All I can offer you is to perhaps read Wikipedia:Relies to common objections and see if any of it rings true to you at all. If not, I'm sure we'll be missing out on a knowledgable contributor, and if you change you're mind in the future you're always welcome to come help out!

 

[TheDEA.org]

1) Community, community community. We are trying to create a site that combines the great community discussion and information gathering of a forum like Blulight with a dynamic database that is very easy to navigate.

Wikis are a terrible format for discussions; the software just isn't user-friendly. One solution would be to tie in a proper bulletin board system akin to bluelight as a replacement for the wiki discussion functionality.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but I just don't see any shortage of communities out there.

What makes your site BETTER than the competition? Give us one good, simple reason why we should come to your site instead of just sticking to Erowid, Wikipedia, etc.

You're a big fan of Wikipedia but you hate the wiki format and think it inevitably self destructs?

I don't hate it; I just see significant flaws in it. Wikipedia is astonishingly broad, but it's also shallow. The format favors stripped-down, even trivial content. The lack of control and lack of author credit discourages major creative/research efforts. Yes, there's a wikipedia entry for just about anything you can think of...but few of them are professional-quality, and virtually none of them are that extensive. That's the trade-off; the collaborative nature of wikis trends towards creating short, somewhat unorganized generic articles.

Wikipedia is a great place to get a quick sense of what a thing is; a starting point if you will. But it's usually a lousy place to try to master a subject.

What we're trying to do with TCCWiki is really entirely different,

I'm not so sure of that. Experience reports? Erowid does it better than you can from a wiki. Discussion groups? The wiki software is a terrible way to handle discussions from a user-friendliness perspective, and there's no shortage of other forums out there. (I have one myself, which very deliberately does NOT have general drug discussion groups; there's little point when there are so many other sites already coving that need.)

We are trying to create a community space where everyone can work together on putting together the best articles possible.

It's a nice idea, but at the end of the day a collaborative effort wouldn't have produced something like my site. It's not that there wasn't enough technical talent out there to pull it off, but a wiki doesn't have a grand vision of what it's supposed to be. That can be a good thing in that it can produce astonishing diversity (ala Wikipedia), but IMO it also tends to produce disorder and a lack of focus.

I could raise the same criticism toward Wikipedia, asking them why they don't just let the Britannica do it's job - but you yourself admit that it's a useful resource.

Because it's free and kicks the crap out of Britannica when it comes to the range of entries. Would the honorable Britannica have given man-Faye an entry? I think not. (Go ahead; click the first link to his photo at the bottom of the entry.)

It ultimately comes down to whether or not you appreciate the potential evolution in information sharing that comes along with the wiki format, which it sounds like you don't.

I'm not convinced that wikis reliably produce excellence. In my opinion what the world needs isn't so much more data as a gatekeeper; somebody that can tell readers what's most worth their time. "Signal to noise ratio" matters.

 

[Shadowstar]

Wikis are a terrible format for discussions; the software just isn't user-friendly. One solution would be to tie in a proper bulletin board system akin to bluelight as a replacement for the wiki discussion functionality.

Indeed. A great thing about this is that wiki functionality can be tied into a forum situation fairly easily, making interlinking forum posts to wiki articles a simple matter. Obviously I don't want to start up a TCCWiki forum just yet, as we already have enough of those, but bluelight itself could incorporate such functionality and become the "official" forum for the wiki. The name, by the way, by no means needs to stay the same once more people are involved.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but I just don't see any shortage of communities out there. What makes your site BETTER than the competition? Give us one good, simple reason why we should come to your site instead of just sticking to Erowid, Wikipedia, etc.

It's not the shortage but the lack of scope. Communities don't database their info effectively. Sites that database info don't have community. I'm simply trying to bridge the two. It's not about better or worse in my mind, simply a place for people to come contribute to something unique and important to the greater drug community.

I don't hate it; I just see significant flaws in it. Wikipedia is astonishingly broad, but it's also shallow. The format favors stripped-down, even trivial content. The lack of control and lack of author credit discourages major creative/research efforts. Yes, there's a wikipedia entry for just about anything you can think of...but few of them are professional-quality, and virtually none of them are that extensive. That's the trade-off; the collaborative nature of wikis trends towards creating short, somewhat unorganized generic articles. Wikipedia is a great place to get a quick sense of what a thing is; a starting point if you will. But it's usually a lousy place to try to master a subject.

I think there's a danger in generalizing everything about wikis from Wikipedia (although I certainly have pointed out some important correlations myself). Wikis are capable of many different levels of excellence and detail. The scope of our wiki is very focused. I don't imagine ever going much beyond 1000 articles, and even that would be pretty impressive. Imagine a hundred people, all drug experts, working on 1000 articles together (maybe 2000 at most). Wikipedia has nearly a million articles. I think you can see where this goes. In addition, as you say, the people who work on Wikipedia are often just doing it for fun and aren't particularly interested in excellence. One thing I have learned about this community (internet&drugs) is that there are hundreds of people out there who are literally experts on one facet of the world or another. Precisely because this information is so difficult to obtain the general level of intelligence, knowledge, and openness among the "acadamic" personalities in this community is really pretty high. People understand that clarity and veracity are of the utmost importance. Sure there are people who will make bad articles, but then that gives me and you the inspiration to make it better.

I'm not so sure of that. Experience reports? Erowid does it better than you can from a wiki. Discussion groups?

At its most basic it's just a community discussing and working on articles together. Erowid offers articles, forums offer disccusion. Wikipedia offers wiki functionality but isn't geared toward drug people and lacks subjective/unofficial articles about drugs.

but a wiki doesn't have a grand vision of what it's supposed to be.

I disagree. I think it can have a vision defined by its members. I've already laid out a preliminary purpose for the site. With the help of several other people dedicated to the project I think we could turn out a pretty beautiful and pointed vision. Again, due to the large contributor:article ratio that I envision we are talking about a much tighter and more focused community than what Wikipedia offers.

Because it's free and kicks the crap out of Britannica when it comes to the range of entries. Would the honorable Britannica have given man-Faye an entry? I think not. (Go ahead; click the first link to his photo at the bottom of the entry.)

Free versus pay I can't speak to (although the Britannica offers some free online services). Range of entries? That's hitting the nail on the head my friend. With people from all different forums, different backgrounds etc. we could end up with articles on every single little topic that had ever popped up in a forum thread. Erowid does not possibly have the man power to catalog every bit of esoteric information, nor do they offer the editability which would make sure it was actually good (some of the Ask Erowid answers are pretty subpar or incomplete imo). Does this make sense? Yes it requires a certain amount of work by people like you and me. It would require responsible admins watching the recent changes and making sure that crap or bad information gets dealt with in a timely way, but that is no challenge for a dedicated community.

I'm not convinced that wikis reliably produce excellence. In my opinion what the world needs isn't so much more data as a gatekeeper; somebody that can tell readers what's most worth their time. "Signal to noise ratio" matters.

It's my opinion that in this day and age we need both "big mind" community information and "experts" to house it responsibly. Just look around. Wikis are popping up all over the place, often in the least expected places. I believe this is like what html forums were to usenet once they became practical. Wikis aren't going to replace good old fashion community by any means, but having one is proving to be increasingly important to the spread of any kind of information. If you haven't yet, I invite you to take a look around at some more focused wikis like perhaps the one on Shroomery, or on some small tech-related site. There is a huge difference between a dedicated wiki community and Wikipedia in the areas of excellence. The scale and possibilities are of a very different degree. Does that make sense?