I've waited to respond to this because I've been thinking about it. I still am.
A wizard is never late, nor is he early. He responds precisely when he means to.
On the face of it, I don't have any objections. However, a Wikipost opens things up to be updated by anyone. That's also fine as far as it goes and I can certainly see the advantages you propose.
What I don't want is that by opening it up that way, error, or duplications, or irrelevant information, or stuff that gets deleted but shouldn't creeps in.
I know that there is some stuff I have duplicated, and I mention that as well. But my hesitation is mainly from the standpoint of cleaning up after others. I've already done the bulk of the work and the thread just gets added to. I don't really have to do much except when new information presents itself.
I dread having to keep going back through information to confirm it's still valid every time something gets changed - such as I believe would happen in opening the thread up.
Am I right to be concerned or am I way off base in the way these Wikiposts function?
I can see your concern, you have valid points.
However, there is a saving grace to WikiPosts; a Time Machine for forum posts, if you will.
Beside the hallmark 'Edit' button, there is a 'History' button. If you click on this button, you are presented with
every change that
any user has made at
any time. In this function, you are able to compare differences between revisions and see what changes have been made. On that note, users have an option to alert the OP whenever they have made an edit as to the reason they have edited the post. You may very easily request that people leave a reason why they've made an edit whenever they've changed something, keeping you in full control.
Not only that, you are also able to revert the
entire post to any one revision if you don't like how it's turned out. Plus, you are able to take away the post's WikiPost status at any point in time, therefore you can revert to the very first revision, and then uncheck the WikiPost box to effectively reverse all changes and pretend nothing ever happened in the first place.
So as far as I see it, for you, the rest of us, and newcomers trying to refer to a valuable public resource, there are only great advantages to gain. However, because it is
your post, if for whatever reason you are even more annoyed by unwanted changes made by users overstepping their bounds, you simply revert to the first revision and uncheck the WikiPost status, as mentioned, like nothing ever happened.
Yes, it will be opening the original post up, in effect turning it into a community-operated Wiki. But rest assured, it remains open
with doors attached and controls in hand. If it ends up being more work than it's worth, you can kick all the changes out, and close them once more. Simple as that.
I dread having to keep going back through information to confirm it's still valid every time something gets changed
I will say that I know I (probably) unfortunately speak for myself when I say that any editor worth their salt
will relay information that has been
tested and
verified by their personal experience with the subject, but I wish I didn't...
Hope I was helpful.
🙂
