Acf Wiki - ideas please

[Mark Carter]

H.M.A. (Dick) Hazeleger wrote:

didn't you just post:

Aha. I'm glad I'm not the only one to have spotted the incongruity. No
offense intended to Dick.

There are pros and cons to the individualist versus group approach. My
thinking is leaning to favouring the individualistic approach; and not
because I'm a general all-round nonconformist. With a group consensus,
there has to be some kind of rule to determine what the outcome is.

Taken to the n'th degree, what you end up with are Special Rules, and
Ordinary Rules, like in governments. The Special Rules generally require
75% in-favour voting and a prespecified quorum to be changed, whereas
Ordinary Rules require a simple majority. Special Rules (here,
Consitutional Rules is a good name for it) generally specify the manner
in which rules may be added, modified, and removed. Ordinary Rules
govern, well, the ordinary activities of the thing being governed.

This does, of course, make things way more complicated than a "lone
wolf" system. Having said that, Pricelessware may want to consider
setting up these kinds of rules. It would make the maintenance a bit
easier. Garrett wouldn't feel as if he were pulled from all sides. There
would be rules stating how the site may be changed. It would reduce
arguments, because at least no-one could argue about the way the system
operates. Just follow the rules. And if you want to change the rules,
you have to follow the procedure for changing the rules. Whatever that
may be.

 

[Mark Carter]

Taken to the n'th degree, what you end up with are Special Rules, and

Ordinary Rules, like in governments. The Special Rules generally require

Not freeware software, but an interesting page about a game called Nomic:
"Nomic, a meta-game popularized by Douglas Hofstadter in his book/column
Metamagical Themas, isn't a combinatorial game, but I like it anyway.
The whole point of Nomic is to change the rules of the game. There are
several Nomic or Nomic-ish games running by email."
http://compgeom.cs.uiuc.edu/~jeffe/mathgames.html

 

[H.M.A. (Dick) Hazeleger]

didn't you just post:

Yes, I did post that

So why are you objecting to this?

Read the second line in the paragraph starting with "Whoa..." again,
perhaps that will make it clear.

What are you objecting to?

The speed in which things being "pushed through the NG"? Please
remember that this is a global group, and that not everyone is living
at UTC -5.

Posting links?
Nope!

Preparing a draft proposal for the group to discuss?

This is a draft then? Ah, and where does it say so? Where are readers
invited to post comments? To me it more looks like "a done deal".
Susan, read back the above post, to which I replied, and then tell me
again that it is meant as a draft, as a piece of discussion.

Regards to all,
Dick

 

[H.M.A. (Dick) Hazeleger]

I >> think that people in other time zones would love to have a
chance to >> have their saying about it... i.o.w.: Not so fast!


Aha. I'm glad I'm not the only one to have spotted the incongruity.
No offense intended to Dick.

There are pros and cons to the individualist versus group approach.
My thinking is leaning to favouring the individualistic approach; and
not because I'm a general all-round nonconformist. With a group
consensus, there has to be some kind of rule to determine what the
outcome is.

Taken to the n'th degree, what you end up with are Special Rules, and
Ordinary Rules, like in governments. The Special Rules generally
require 75% in-favour voting and a prespecified quorum to be changed,
whereas Ordinary Rules require a simple majority. Special Rules
(here, Consitutional Rules is a good name for it) generally specify
the manner in which rules may be added, modified, and removed.
Ordinary Rules govern, well, the ordinary activities of the thing
being governed.

This does, of course, make things way more complicated than a "lone
wolf" system. Having said that, Pricelessware may want to consider
setting up these kinds of rules. It would make the maintenance a bit
easier. Garrett wouldn't feel as if he were pulled from all sides.
There would be rules stating how the site may be changed. It would
reduce arguments, because at least no-one could argue about the way
the system operates. Just follow the rules. And if you want to change
the rules, you have to follow the procedure for changing the rules.
Whatever that may be.

Hi Mark,

I always thought that the only rule in "alt." NG's is that there are no
rules; obviously I am mistaken. Especially in the PW/PL threads of the
last months (and yes I have read them all) I see rule upon rule, upon
changed rule passing by; in a way that this NG at times more looks like
our parlement than a newsgroup for freeware enthusiasts.

Now, if the "lone wolf" approach would be the only one that would work,
then how in Heaven's name would the result be representing us, the
readers of ACF? To me it seems that it would represent more the
webmaster of that site... unless there is a group effort. I know that
this NG gets more and more readers every day, and that things could get
more complicated, however why don't we try it the "old fashioned way",
the way things were done before? Is there a need to 'modernize', or are
we just 'modernizing to modernize'?

IMO, we would take the very thing out of this newsgroup that keeps it
alive: spontanity, freedom of discussion, freedom of posting; if we
were to let rules being put upon us here as well.

Regards

Dick

 

[H.M.A. (Dick) Hazeleger]

OK, consider it an "interim message".

I'm seriously beginning to think that democracy doesn't work, and
that a "benevolent dictatorship" is the better way to go. "If you
yield to everyone, then soon you have nothing to yield" - Aesop:
http://tinyurl.com/5u7we

Look at the PL thread (and to some extent, this thread, too). I'm not
singling out anyone in particular here, you understand, but there are
messages like "what we need is another vote", "no we don't need
another vote", "but that's not democratic", yada yada yada.

I'm thinking that probably the best way to go is for everyone just to
do what they want to do, in the hope that it all fits together in
some kind of interesting mosiac. Take Henk's site, for example. He
chugs along, doing what he wants to do, and makes a useful
contribution to freeware. If anyone wants to suggest an improvement,
they can. Henk is free to implement it or ignore it as he chooses. I
do pretty much the same thing with my SOUL listings. It makes life
easier for the both of us, because neither of us feel obliged to
follow the will of the group. They're our own individual projects, we
can do what we want.

Please note that it's also not a particularly egomaniacal attitude. I
used to keep a list of my favourite freeware, for example. I found it
difficult to locate sites that offered freeware; chiefly because most
sites like to bung in the word "freeware" so that it gets picked up
by Google. Then I discovered alt.comp.freeware. I found that there
were some genuinely good freeware sites, so I started building a
collection of them. Then I noticed Henk's site, and realised that he
was doing a much better job at it than I was. So I would much rather
defer to him. After all, he's doing all the hard work for me. Great!

So you see, it's possible to work separately and together both at the
same time.

Hi again Mark!

Well, if democracy isn't going to work, like you said, then why *are*
we discussing? Because we _do_ want it to work, because we live in some
form of democracy. Aesop was a witty guy, and he wrote nice stories,
but do place the remark he made in the appropriate time frame. Sure,
you will have people saying "Yes", "No", or "I don't know"; but that
isn't any different in real life, don't you agree? Now, should we
abandon democracy in real life because of that? I don't think so!

So... why should do so we here. You mention Henk's site (and there are
numerous others), but think again... there is a basic difference: PWL
is supposed to be the representation of a selection process in ACF , by
its subscribers; Henk's site is set up by himself, maintained by
himself without any nominating or voting process. If this were done by
PWL then I would suggest to remove their slogan entirely, since it
wouldn't be valid anymore, it would be a one (wo)man's job, not a group
effort.

I agree with you on the "freeware" keyword in sites that virtually have
none whatsoever of it, I also agree that this NG is a good place to
find freeware, or discuss it; but please let's do so in "Freedom of
Posting".

I'll think I will go back to lurking mode for a while, and see how this
develops... I hope for the better!

Regards to all readers,
Dick

 

[VH]

If the wiki is moved to the PWH site, I'd also suggest changing the
engine to something with a little more visual appeal (my personal
recommendations are MoinMoin [http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de/] or TWiki
[http://twiki.org/]) - much as I love the c2 wiki itself, the engine's
minimalist look could be offputting, and there are some advanced
features in the newer wikis that are really nice to have.

martin

I would like to play with wiki myself. Do you have a recommendation
for a windows version that is easy to install, customize and has a RTF
editor (something like
http://www.zfl.uni-bielefeld.de/personal/mjablonski/epoz). I know the
last requirement is not in keeping with the philosophy of wiki but
even though it is simple enough I don't want the users to be forced to
learn a new mark up language.

 

[Roger Johansson]

When a wiki is created on the web, is there a way to copy it to your
local hard disk for offline use?

That seems important because otherwise it is only available online.

A wiki should have a function for downloading all or parts of it to the
user's local computer, so the wiki is available when the user is not
online, and so anybody can save a copy of the wiki in its current state,
so it is not lost through later deletions or if the server is taken away
from the web.

What wiki systems have such a download funktion, so it can be used
offline as well as online?

 

[Martin DeMello]

What wiki systems have such a download funktion, so it can be used
offline as well as online?

Instiki [http://www.instiki.org/show/HomePage] does - you can export the
entire wiki either as markup or as html. It also bundles its own
webserver, so you can run it right out of the box on your home machine.

martin

 

[Martin DeMello]

I would like to play with wiki myself. Do you have a recommendation
for a windows version that is easy to install, customize and has a RTF
editor (something like
http://www.zfl.uni-bielefeld.de/personal/mjablonski/epoz). I know the
last requirement is not in keeping with the philosophy of wiki but
even though it is simple enough I don't want the users to be forced to
learn a new mark up language.

Never seen a wiki with an RTF editor built in, sorry Give instiki
[http://www.instiki.org] a spin, though - the edit page has a cheatsheet
built in, so there's not much to 'learn'. And the setup overhead is very
low, so you can play with it and see if you like it, and discard it if
not.

martin

 

[Vic Dura]

I must say that I'm happy with all kind of initiatives concerning ACF,
but aren't we going a little too far when we discuss all kind of issues
in other places instead of ACF?

I agree with you here.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Instiki [http://www.instiki.org/show/HomePage] does - you can export the
entire wiki either as markup or as html. It also bundles its own
webserver, so you can run it right out of the box on your home machine.

Sounds good, this wiki can be downloaded and used locally, and it also
allows the use of pictures, which most wiki systems do not allow.

The only problem with it is that it needs Ruby to run, I think, so we
have to install this
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/binaries/mswin32/ruby-1.8.1-i386-mswin32.zip
if we use windows.
It is crossplatform so linux users have another Ruby base to install.

Does this wiki run on any web server, or does it need Ruby?

 

[Glenn]

I've been reading these things, even went to the wiki site and still am not
sure what it is. Out of curiosity, does anyone even know what the letters
stand for?

Glenn

 

[Martin DeMello]

I've been reading these things, even went to the wiki site and still am not
sure what it is. Out of curiosity, does anyone even know what the letters
stand for?

It's not an acronym - see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EtymologyOfWiki

martin

 

[Martin DeMello]

Does this wiki run on any web server, or does it need Ruby?

No, the wiki needs ruby, which does come by default with linux and OSX
but is a separate install on windows. It's a one-click install, though
[http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl], and is pretty
painless and good at staying out of your way. Most of the better-known
wikis will need one of perl, python, php or ruby installed anyway, I
think.

martin

 

[Roger Johansson]

No, the wiki needs ruby, which does come by default with linux and OSX
but is a separate install on windows. It's a one-click install, though
[http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl], and is pretty
painless and good at staying out of your way. Most of the better-known
wikis will need one of perl, python, php or ruby installed anyway, I
think.

This solves the problem for the individual user.

But for somebody who wants to run it on a server on internet, they would
need access to a server which has Ruby already or where Ruby, and the
Ruby wiki, can be installed. I wonder how much of a problem that is..

The typical web designer who rents a web space or uses some free web
space would maybe not be able to do this..?

That would be a pity as it seems to be much better than other wikis.
The possibility to download a copy of the wiki, and to use pictures, is
making it much more useful.

Other wikis look pretty boring with their text-only pages and it would
be a lot of work to copy each page manually to create a local hard disk
copy of it.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Yes, I did post that




Read the second line in the paragraph starting with "Whoa..." again,
perhaps that will make it clear.




The speed in which things being "pushed through the NG"? Please
remember that this is a global group, and that not everyone is living
at UTC -5.


This is a draft then? Ah, and where does it say so? Where are readers
invited to post comments? To me it more looks like "a done deal".
Susan, read back the above post, to which I replied, and then tell me
again that it is meant as a draft, as a piece of discussion.

Good grief Charlie Brown. I think you're *reading* at jet speed. This is
a *pre-draft* discussion. Mark offered to *prepare* a draft message
along the lines that Henk suggested (see above) and submit it for
comments.

Ill-founded *blanket* objections are less than helpful. You endorsed the
*idea*. Do you want the idea to remain an idea or become a reality?

After *many* posts in this and other threads saying it would be good to
*have* something Mark volunteered to *do* something to get the ball
rolling.

IMO that calls for cheering, not sniping.

Susan

 

[Martin DeMello]

But for somebody who wants to run it on a server on internet, they would
need access to a server which has Ruby already or where Ruby, and the
Ruby wiki, can be installed. I wonder how much of a problem that is..

The typical web designer who rents a web space or uses some free web
space would maybe not be able to do this..?

Yes, finding ruby-friendly web hosting has typically been a problem
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyFriendlyISPs lists a few.
The person running http://theinternetco.net/ says they already host a
few instikis.

That would be a pity as it seems to be much better than other wikis.
The possibility to download a copy of the wiki, and to use pictures, is
making it much more useful.

Other wikis look pretty boring with their text-only pages and it would
be a lot of work to copy each page manually to create a local hard disk
copy of it.

There are other wikis that do images, but most of them are significantly
harder to get up and running, and overkill for a personal site. Instiki
really shines in this area - it does precisely those things the average
user would want, and makes them quick and easy to get working.

martin

 

[Susan Bugher]

The typical web designer who rents a web space or uses some free web
space would maybe not be able to do this..?

That would be a pity as it seems to be much better than other wikis.
The possibility to download a copy of the wiki, and to use pictures, is
making it much more useful.

But - how many "typical web designers" have unlimited space available?
Picture require a *lot* more web space than text.

Susan

 

[Roger Johansson]

But - how many "typical web designers" have unlimited space available?
Picture require a *lot* more web space than text.

A typical picture uses 10k-100k, if prepared in a reasonable way.
Modern hard disks are getting bigger and bigger, hundreds of gigabytes,
so web space restrictions should follow that development.

And remember the self-cleaning properties of wiki, if somebody uploads
an unnecessary or too big picture somebody else will simply remove it,
or resample it.

By the way, during my explorations of wikis I found some impressive
examples of wiki use, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for
example. It is a collection of all human knowledge, created by thousands
of volunteers, and it keeps growing, day by day.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

A typical picture uses 10k-100k, if prepared in a reasonable way.
Modern hard disks are getting bigger and bigger, hundreds of gigabytes,
so web space restrictions should follow that development.

And remember the self-cleaning properties of wiki, if somebody uploads
an unnecessary or too big picture somebody else will simply remove it,
or resample it.

I hadn't thought of visitors doing "repairs". That would help. The "if
prepared is a reasonable way" part still concerns me.

Susan