New Web-Based Encyclopedia

Good story. Thanks for passing this along.

Would anyone be interested in creating an on-line "Engineering Encylopedia / Wikipedia"? We certainly have a good knowledge base here on CR4.

Yeah that would be a good idea. Who is going to administrate that. We all know we know alot but we also know a lot who think alot

Found some more info on the veropedia as well. Apparently there was another guy from wiki that left and did the same thing. He started http://en.citizendium.org/ But gave up on the idea to take wiki content and improve on it. Sanger says the articles were in such poor shape he had to abandon that notion and start from scratch.

Maybe we can create the definitive and call it cr4pedia.

Squint and it looks a bit like cr#p-edia, oh dear, just found a flaw already.

Yep, the administrative part would require some heavy lifting! Putting all those "real world" (and very important!) considerations aside, I do wonder if engineers would be interested in a "Wikipedia" written by engineers, for engineers, and about engineering topics.

it is a great idea, how quality control be administered would be interesting.

I had purchased a dictionary of scientific and technical terms quite a few years back. One thing that I found is when your searching for something you stumble across other terms worth reading.

its a good idea but that would be competing against CR4? and CR4 is more interactive.

I definitely wouldn't want it to compete against CR4, but I do wonder if there might be a way to "re-purpose" some of the excellent information that can be found here. I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but I've seen comments (buried deep within threads) that provide more information about a technical subject than Wikipedia does.

actual practical experience, without tying it to CR4 always. Thats what I like about CR4.

And the response time is great though it does have drawbacks on CR4, it can be used as somewhat of a model.

You're right. I can find good expertise here and, when I'm wrong about something, I get correct info without getting corrected like a schoolboy (sure there's the occasional flame but that usually gets handled). That's not the case on all forums. I mean I've even seen people contradict Omar Blodgett's methods on welding because his formulas are not mathematically "pure"!

I like the idea, but I think it'd have to be a full-time job for someone (or several people)*. It would be bad enough just keeping up with the incoming day-to-day stuff, never mind trawling back through the archives.

(and No, I'm not offering!).

*Unless maybe it could be packaged out across the membership? Then who decides who's up to scratch, and who minds the minders?

Engineer is a big field, with the multiple displines to say the least, after its started one person may not be able to manage it?

especial if it has links.

thats ok,

actually if it could be tagged by each who contributed to each topic. Kinda like a revision to update each topic, that way there is some accountablity, (and no liability)

when there is accountibilty that may help to keep to keep the site from taking a path wikipedia did.

As I am writing, controversy is already setting in.

Example;

The first topic is Global Warming, Wonder how many links there would be to that, such as.

See; No such Thing

or

See: see CR4

Guess one would have to start setting basic ground rules to begin with.

Maybe worth pursuing your idea. You'd have to allow posters to set a flag saying:

"this is just an opinion/idea/feeling, don't quote me on this"

.. or words to that effect, otherwise there'd be the risk of people being too nervous to post (what may be a useful contribution) for fear of being held accountable.

Hello JohnDG,

On a simuliar topic. Heres what I like about CR4. Its happen to me, I would be recalling something as I remember it, which can be somewht skewed due to time, memory (or lack of) and events at the moment.

Even though it is somewhat accurate, there maybe things in a post that are vague or just plain not true. It does not take very long and members point it out or need to pin down the meaning. Even though it is unintentional, members will call you on it. which is great.

But when I do it prior to a post I do start out saying ; as I recall, or my opinion. as a flag.

But what was posted earlier, Its more than just a database of knowledge, I like the interactive part with practical and actual experience of the knowledge. You cannot get that from a book or just a library of facts.

I am getting winded here, but basically a data base that is step up from from CR4.

And if one keeps working this topic, one may be able to get a good ground floor understanding of the structure that would be needed, and deteremined if its useful or feasible or not.

phoenix911

All management-type issues aside, what incentives might it take to get people to contribute? (And no, I don't think that CR4 will be handing out any million-dollar writing contracts!) Wikipedia got a dedicated core of volunteers to "do it for free", and replicating that feat has eluded entrants into the "Wiki" arena.

"Wikipedia got a dedicated core of volunteers to "do it for free", and replicating that feat has eluded entrants into the "Wiki" arena."

Its still the quality issues that I am concerned about. Some volunteers may have agendas.

Verification of the entrants before posting.

"what incentives might it take to get people to contribute?" and

"Wikipedia got a dedicated core of volunteers to "do it for free", "

These are the reasons why both previous contributors left them. And coincidently both are in agreement that wiki content is less than useful to anyone thinking of re-using it for their xxxpedia. This is what you get when uncensored editing by unvetted visitors is allowed. You must have a core of knowledge to chew it over, that is going to cost in my mind.

If we get something of the ground here, it will only be for the sheer fun of it. A glorification of our self, nothing more. It will not be useful or deemed useful.

Thinking about this I now agree with previous posts, we are far better doing what we do right now, interactive discussions.

I'm inclined to agree.

But maybe some other way of using what's already here could be dreamt up. Maybe some way of tagging stuff? (not left up to the posters - I, for one, am useless at tagging sensibly).

Having slept on it, I think what I mean is an indexing system.

Initially perhaps a subject index with pointers to the relevant posts. A refinement could be a rating system (for the index pointers), with ratings formed by a weighted average of ratings from some kind of special interest group in a relevant discipline.

I was very unimpressed with my Wiki experience.

In attempting to improve & expand an article, Most of my corrections & additions were reverted or deleted by know-nothing administrators who admitted they "don't have the time to research the subject".

Like having grammer school punks editing Feyman's work, its really just a manifestation of mental lazyness with a heavy dose of arrogance.

The worste part is that Wikipedia & its many clones hog up Google search results, crowding out legitimate info sources.

Veropedia will be just a fossilized version of whatever flavorless paste oozes out of the Wiki editorial filters.

Thanks case491 for new awarness, but we are so used to Google ,Wikipedia ,CR4 and never felt something left out and need , your proposed site may gain popularity with time and will surely will if improved on other encyclopedias and corresponding links ,just see what google did and beat all competetitors , CR4 is so interactive we get corrections and finishes within same period ?? .....CR4 is also best site and perhaps unbeatable this site too will improve with time ,thats sure .

When I was in grade school, I was taught to avoid encyclopedias entirely. I think that was pretty good advice, and I've generally found encyclopedias to be full of drivel and superficial treatments. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is great, enabling one to really delve into a subject. The quality varies from article to article, but there are generally enough links to outside resources that you can quickly get up to speed. I doubt that Veropedia will improve on wikipedia -- if anything, it would make it closer to an old style encyclopedia. In the subjects that I follow closely, Wikipedia is surprisingly good.

"The Wikipedia model of allowing anyone to edit any article, regardless of their expertise or intent, simply can't produce information people can rely on, says Wool."

Although that sounds reasonable, in practice it is not the case. I don't rely on Wikipedia as a single source, but I don't rely on textbooks as single sources either. Of course, for political subjects, biographies, etc. Wikipedia varies quite a lot, but for highly technical subjects, you don't often get nitwits mucking things up.

"you don't often get nitwits mucking things up. "

only takes one nitwit thou....

Most excellent. I did not know about that feature and would like to tlearn how to use it, I have not realy seen it before being used in this way.

I tried with your post but nothing happened, at least not imediately obvious. Did I do it wrong?

Once mastered I think I will use that feature to increase the weight of some good answers opposed to the blanks.

Ok so that is how it works, you need to update the thread first and than you will see the result, COOL.

"Anyway, I'm just kicking tires here. "

We all are, worked on too many projects that started with not much more than a twinkle in someones eye, and any projects that has a goal like this, I normally try to tear it apart, and whatevers left that survived, work with that. i.e. we're all brainstorming on this.

I always thought that tyre kicking is when you try to haggle the price down when you want to buy something which often results in time wasting. In the UK that is what tirekickers are, timewasters. I do not for one minute say or believe that I think that is what anybody is here on cr4 so maybe we need some explanation to the term. Please?

It's an old saying then means we are checking out the subject, preliminary assessments and such.

Thought maybe how it was wording may have pointed to that, guess I have to brush up on my English for my friends over seas.

I think it was Mark Twain that said that, "our two nations is separated by one common language" I'll have to check that out.

(and sometimes it seems like we're wasting time though)

phoenix911

I did think that but still thought better to ask.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Cheers (English for thank you)

Just the fact it is possible means you have to mistrust all info as you cannot tell the difference. That is not what a reference work should be like. I always used encyclopedias and providing you had a good reputable version, the info always proved invaluable to a well balanced opinion. It does however need interpretation and that is the next step where it can go wrong but that is up to each individual.

Wiki has as yet to show me info in concise form that is complete and unquestionable but so does google. The difference is that google does not pretend to be a reference work and you should never approach it that way.

You know, despite you being a Double Dutch Guy and a Hard "Case" too, you have some good ideas.

(Do you know what the Germans call people from Holland? and even more interesting for me, what do the Dutch people call the Germans? and the English and the British!!)

I am on with you (again!!) its a great idea.

Have a great evening!!

There's some good stuff going on with this discussion. Hope we see a source we can really trust someday.

with the virtual world as its getting to be, I hope that it does not get hard to distingush what to and not to trust, if we're not there already.

"trust but verifiy"