Tom Rankin
Well-known member
And just as 1 data point, while your write up looks good, I see there are only 3 people who have signed in as 115'ers, and there are several hundred finishers by now.
Thinking about setting up a hiking wiki
- Thread starter B the Hiker
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
cushetunk
New member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 50
First, I want to announce that under this standard I will now be assuming that most of you VFTT frequent posters have no idea how to read a map.
Second, B - Sure sounds promising. The only way to know is to set it up and see what happens. In terms of providing reliable info, I don't see how this would be any different than the "trail conditions" section of this website.
roadtripper said:
These are all closely related. On this site, and others (including Mohamed's), one has learned which trail conditions and trip reports are most accurate and informative. In the case of knowing nothing, you can at least contact the original poster and report the error(s). I suspect (only a suspicion) that a wiki will be perceived as more authoritative and thus should be held to a higher standard. Who is accountable for errors in this case? Don't forget the trail conditions starts with a banner
Views From The Top can not verify the accuracy of this information and is not responsible for the contents of these pages.
Here is a question for Brian - as an AMC trip leader, what source(s) of information do you trust when planning an AMC group trip? Would you trust this wiki?
Tim
Last edited:
DSettahr
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 981
- Reaction score
- 142
Wikis like Wikipedia get a lot of flack for their openness to anyone to edit and their therefore perceived lack of quality. Wikipedia articles typically do one thing though that really puts it above a lot of other casual sources of information on the internet- information sources for each article are cited. You don't see that too often elsewhere on the internet when you're looking at anything other than scholarly articles.
We tell our students that while wikipedia isn't acceptable as a cited source on a final product submitted by the students, but that it's a great place to start gathering information. A wikipedia article can usually give them a decent understanding about a topic of they know little about it to begin with, and the citations can usually point them in the direction of at least a couple of acceptable sources of information that they can use in their work.
Certainly, with any wiki, the quality of information is going to be an issue. Typically, though, you see that when a wiki has a dedicated community, it usually polices itself pretty well. Willful and intentional posting of incorrect information is usually caught and dealt with pretty quickly.
Unintentional posting of incorrect information is a little bit harder to deal with, since it's not as obvious. I would think, though, that a hiking wiki would be read mainly by those with less hiking experience, who are more likely to hike on more popular trails. Since popular trails get hiked more often, I would think that the bulk of the information being accessed on the site by the public would concern these trails, which means that this information would get "field checked" pretty regularly.
I also don't think that it would take much effort at all to provide information that is better in quality and more up to date than the standard for backcountry hiking information- the guidebooks. The fact is, when you pay close attention, many hiking guidebooks are full of missinformation. None of it is willful, of course, but when you have a guidebook that is written by one or two people, and covers an area big enough that it would take months to rehike and recheck all of the trails, there are going to be inaccuracies that end up in the final product.
Because a wiki is much more flexible, and bits and pieces of the overall package can be updated as people hike those trails, the overall quality of the information offered could be quite high with a dedicated community. I think that, in terms of the overall quality of the information on the site, the flexibility of the wiki overall to remain more up to date would more than offset the any inaccurate information on a specific level. In other words, yes, you might have wrong information posted to an individual article, but overall, the quality of the information would be among the most up to date and best available.
As for writing style- yes, it could be difficult to achieve a standard that is non-subjective. Plenty of other wikis have accomplished this, though, and with the overall intelligence level of the online hiking community, I don't really see it as a huge stumbling block for a project like this.
We tell our students that while wikipedia isn't acceptable as a cited source on a final product submitted by the students, but that it's a great place to start gathering information. A wikipedia article can usually give them a decent understanding about a topic of they know little about it to begin with, and the citations can usually point them in the direction of at least a couple of acceptable sources of information that they can use in their work.
Certainly, with any wiki, the quality of information is going to be an issue. Typically, though, you see that when a wiki has a dedicated community, it usually polices itself pretty well. Willful and intentional posting of incorrect information is usually caught and dealt with pretty quickly.
Unintentional posting of incorrect information is a little bit harder to deal with, since it's not as obvious. I would think, though, that a hiking wiki would be read mainly by those with less hiking experience, who are more likely to hike on more popular trails. Since popular trails get hiked more often, I would think that the bulk of the information being accessed on the site by the public would concern these trails, which means that this information would get "field checked" pretty regularly.
I also don't think that it would take much effort at all to provide information that is better in quality and more up to date than the standard for backcountry hiking information- the guidebooks. The fact is, when you pay close attention, many hiking guidebooks are full of missinformation. None of it is willful, of course, but when you have a guidebook that is written by one or two people, and covers an area big enough that it would take months to rehike and recheck all of the trails, there are going to be inaccuracies that end up in the final product.
Because a wiki is much more flexible, and bits and pieces of the overall package can be updated as people hike those trails, the overall quality of the information offered could be quite high with a dedicated community. I think that, in terms of the overall quality of the information on the site, the flexibility of the wiki overall to remain more up to date would more than offset the any inaccurate information on a specific level. In other words, yes, you might have wrong information posted to an individual article, but overall, the quality of the information would be among the most up to date and best available.
As for writing style- yes, it could be difficult to achieve a standard that is non-subjective. Plenty of other wikis have accomplished this, though, and with the overall intelligence level of the online hiking community, I don't really see it as a huge stumbling block for a project like this.
Well, that's that!
Clearly there is some misunderstanding as to what a wiki is, and that would certainly clear over time. A wiki is best thought of as an on-line encyclopedia, with entries written and updated collectively. There could be links and cross-links, so that one could type in a mountain's name, see trail descriptions, find a link to the NOAA weather forecast, perhaps a link to a map, but also any history, for example, or links to entries about relevant huts, GPS coordinates to parking lots, and so on.
Typically there are editors who oversee the changes, and if someone can in and did damage, say, they would reverse it.
A wiki is a nice way to accumulate knowledge, but drawing collectively on many. It isn't a set of trip descriptions. It isn't a blog. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_beer_and_breweries to see an example.
What is does require is a LOT of people willing to contribute. A lot! Over time, if it were pulled off, it would replace trail guides and other various websites, because it builds over time, rather than being just maintained at the status quo--if it works. Moreover, good wikis, because they have links, are adept at sending people to other websites.
Clearly there is not that level of support.
All the best,
Brian
Clearly there is some misunderstanding as to what a wiki is, and that would certainly clear over time. A wiki is best thought of as an on-line encyclopedia, with entries written and updated collectively. There could be links and cross-links, so that one could type in a mountain's name, see trail descriptions, find a link to the NOAA weather forecast, perhaps a link to a map, but also any history, for example, or links to entries about relevant huts, GPS coordinates to parking lots, and so on.
Typically there are editors who oversee the changes, and if someone can in and did damage, say, they would reverse it.
A wiki is a nice way to accumulate knowledge, but drawing collectively on many. It isn't a set of trip descriptions. It isn't a blog. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_beer_and_breweries to see an example.
What is does require is a LOT of people willing to contribute. A lot! Over time, if it were pulled off, it would replace trail guides and other various websites, because it builds over time, rather than being just maintained at the status quo--if it works. Moreover, good wikis, because they have links, are adept at sending people to other websites.
Clearly there is not that level of support.
All the best,
Brian
That's probably true.
But here's something else that is definitely true: Some of us have a complete understanding of what a wiki is, which is precisely why we're not interested in getting involved in this project.
This is a good question!
Anecdote
A buddy of mine who is a high school teacher wanted to warn his students about using wikipedia. The night before, he entered some incorrect information on an entry, and then was going to show it to his students. The only problem is that when he logged on the next day, the incorrect information had been deleted...
Scholarly Research
I have a friend who does research on wikis--specifically wikipedia. The information there is remarkably accurate! It pairs up to encyclopedia entries--except for the fact that wikipedia is updated more quickly.
When I plan a trip, I look at trail guides, I often hop onto Mohammed's site (often regretting it weren't a wiki so it would have more info), I sometimes call the local ranger station (as is the case with recent Long Trail hikes--which is where the wiki idea came from in the first place), and I sometimes hop on Views. Why would I ever believe something I read on Views? I post a question, someone I've never heard from, who has no picture and has no name responds, and I trust this person. Why would I ever do that?
Now here's the thing, any answer we give to that holds for a wiki.
All the best,
Brian
You cast equal doubt on Views, which for low-post-count or anonymous users is completely fair. There are, however, many reputable TR/TC posters here and it doesn't take long to learn who they are. I cannot (easily) figure out or contact the last author of a Wikipedia article.
Last year you were looking for info on the Rangeley area while I was up there. MichaelJ had been reading my TRs and pointed you right at them, less than 8 hours later. Granted, it was not trail descriptions.
I think the idea is a good one. The implementation is the hard part. Perhaps if the AMC got behind it, it would have enough contributors and editors that it would be consistent, helpful and complete.
The bigger / better wikis have professional staff (Wikipedia) or world-wide distribution (memory-alpha.org, harrypotter.wikia.com, etc.) I do not see enough evidence of that level of support in this case.
And, to give props where props are due, I got the most helpful information for my first round of the 48 from here, Mohamed's site, and HikeTheWhites.com (Dave Metsky's site.)
Tim
Last year you were looking for info on the Rangeley area while I was up there. MichaelJ had been reading my TRs and pointed you right at them, less than 8 hours later. Granted, it was not trail descriptions.
I think the idea is a good one. The implementation is the hard part. Perhaps if the AMC got behind it, it would have enough contributors and editors that it would be consistent, helpful and complete.
The bigger / better wikis have professional staff (Wikipedia) or world-wide distribution (memory-alpha.org, harrypotter.wikia.com, etc.) I do not see enough evidence of that level of support in this case.
And, to give props where props are due, I got the most helpful information for my first round of the 48 from here, Mohamed's site, and HikeTheWhites.com (Dave Metsky's site.)
Tim
I'm at a loss as to why this conversation refuses to die when I clearly threw in the towel. But to respond, a wiki could easily have editors who review entries, and if someone posted false or poor information, the editors could simply shut that person off from making further entries.
There is no difference that I can see between the two, other than in the Views case, the reader has to determine the reliability of the person posting, whereas in a wiki, that job falls to the editors.
All the best,
Brian
There is no difference that I can see between the two, other than in the Views case, the reader has to determine the reliability of the person posting, whereas in a wiki, that job falls to the editors.
All the best,
Brian
DSettahr
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 981
- Reaction score
- 142
At the top of each article is a tab titles "View History." Click on this tab, and you'll see who has edited each page. Click on the "talk" link next to the IP address/screen name of the editor for any of the edits, and you'll find a page where you can leave feed back for them.
I am aware of the mechanics of the process (and thank you for pointing it out for those who are unfamiliar.) I don't feel that makes them easily contacted, or removes their anonymity. I would bet more than half of the readers here don't know what an IP address even is. You can reach me here by public reply, PM, e-mail, IM, my web site, etc. I've met and/or hiked with many of you. Not everyone is that open, I admit...
I am not saying, nor have I ever said "don't do it" or "it's a bad idea", only that it is a lot more work than one might imagine, and that I believe it will be challenging to achieve the critical mass it will need to surpass the existing internet resources and supplant the printed material. Once in a more professional format (than say a forum), I think it will be held to a higher standard. To remain credible, it will need a lot of maintenance (editors).
Tim
Stan
Well-known member
I suspect it is because we admire that someone has an idea and is not only willing to stick his neck out but would be willing to do his share of the work to implement the idea.
I, for one, also enjoy learning from discussions like this.
Little Rickie
New member
Don't throw in the towel!
Don't listen to the nay sayers.
Follow your dream.
Pursue you desires.
Have fun with it.
"Go where no man has gone before"
It's big big WWW out there.
"Never give up, never surrender."
"Quiters never win, winners never quit."
Don't listen to the odds.
If you build it they will come.
GO FOR IT!
hikerbrian
Active member
Because it's easier to start a discussion on the interweb tubes than it is to end one. Gotta be a moderator to do that.
Anyway, when I was living out west I spent a lot of time on Summitpost. I think it's pretty much exactly what you envisioned in your OP. And by and large, I think Summitpost is a fantastic collection of information. It's definitely far more than a collection of trip reports - spend some time on there and you'll see.
But even with its vast success, I'm aware of at least two instances when Summitpost very nearly died. As in, all information lost. Not because of catastrophic server failure or the like, but because the contributors ran out of energy and it began to collapse under its own weight. Wikis are like houses - you may think you are constantly building, but actually the house is constantly deteriorating, and the bigger you build it, the more work it requires just to maintain. It's tough to outsmart entropy.
Well, I certainly want to thank the recent posters for their kind and encouraging words, but I don't think the levels of support for such a massive undertaking currently exist. Who knows what the future holds?
As a teachable moment, what we are seeing here is known as path dependency in my little academic neck of the woods. Many bright and energetic folks have sunk quite a bit of time and effort into building their sites--and to great effect. Now, if we were starting from absolute scratch, might a wiki be a better way to devote said time and effort? I would humbly suggest yes, but that time and effort has already been sunk, and once folks have moved down that path, it is very hard to move off of it.
It it noteworthy to point out the ownership element here. There have references to this person's site and that person's site. A wiki isn't owned by anybody, which is both its strength and its weakness. As has been rightly pointed out, they're a lot of work to maintain, but on the other hand, they belong to everyone and anyone who wants to contribute. In this regard, knowledge is in some ways easier to build, if there are those who want to contribute.
All the best,
Brian
As a teachable moment, what we are seeing here is known as path dependency in my little academic neck of the woods. Many bright and energetic folks have sunk quite a bit of time and effort into building their sites--and to great effect. Now, if we were starting from absolute scratch, might a wiki be a better way to devote said time and effort? I would humbly suggest yes, but that time and effort has already been sunk, and once folks have moved down that path, it is very hard to move off of it.
It it noteworthy to point out the ownership element here. There have references to this person's site and that person's site. A wiki isn't owned by anybody, which is both its strength and its weakness. As has been rightly pointed out, they're a lot of work to maintain, but on the other hand, they belong to everyone and anyone who wants to contribute. In this regard, knowledge is in some ways easier to build, if there are those who want to contribute.
All the best,
Brian
Little Rickie
New member
If it was easy everyone would do it.
One of the defining characteristics of a leader is to believe the task at hand in achieable.
If you believe you can achieve.
Kimball
Member
community driven hiking guide?
I like the idea, a community driven hiking guide. I would help.
Not everyone uses guide books, that's fine. But when I hike in a new place, I look for directions to the trailhead, the mileage and vertical, and any points of interest along the way.
I can see an online hiking guide including the content you normally find in a guide book: description, details, mileage, points of interest. But it doesn't make sense IMO to include road or trail conditions. Changing conditions is a lot of work to keep up to date. I would know*.
Using a Wiki makes sense to me. We can all contribute, if we choose, when we have time. Yes, some people may enter bogus information, but it will be noticed and corrected before long.
A good example of this is the very nice hiking wiki for Washington State: www.trailwiki.us
Many of us have built hiking websites. The problem is things change and content needs to be updated. Or life happens, and we don't have time to maintain them any more. Using a wiki system solves both of those problems, because content is easy to change and anyone can change it.
* If it's trail conditions or road closures you are looking for. TrailsNH.com indexes trail reports from 50+ forums and blogs as well as WMNF road status and trail alerts.
-Kimball
I like the idea, a community driven hiking guide. I would help.
Not everyone uses guide books, that's fine. But when I hike in a new place, I look for directions to the trailhead, the mileage and vertical, and any points of interest along the way.
I can see an online hiking guide including the content you normally find in a guide book: description, details, mileage, points of interest. But it doesn't make sense IMO to include road or trail conditions. Changing conditions is a lot of work to keep up to date. I would know*.
Using a Wiki makes sense to me. We can all contribute, if we choose, when we have time. Yes, some people may enter bogus information, but it will be noticed and corrected before long.
A good example of this is the very nice hiking wiki for Washington State: www.trailwiki.us
Many of us have built hiking websites. The problem is things change and content needs to be updated. Or life happens, and we don't have time to maintain them any more. Using a wiki system solves both of those problems, because content is easy to change and anyone can change it.
* If it's trail conditions or road closures you are looking for. TrailsNH.com indexes trail reports from 50+ forums and blogs as well as WMNF road status and trail alerts.
-Kimball
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Wapack trail Watatic to Windblown ski are NH 9.2 miles. The best laid plans of mice and men.
- Latest: Beckie and Prema
-
-
-
