glassdoc.org

Hi folks,

I've setup a wiki on glass. There's a german and an english version at the following links:

formatting link
#english of course
formatting link
#german of courseThere's not much stuff there yet but as there is certainly going to be some it'll be under the "Creative Commons License".That's sort of GPL for anything that you want to share on a free basis. But it's explained there. Documentation about how it works and conventions to be used so that we can get on well together is scarce too but it will build up eventually.

There's also a mailing list available at

formatting link
but you won't actually need that since you got rec.crafts.glass :-)But if you want to talk about glassdoc.org only it's probably the better place to do so. For the ones that want to communicate more directly from time to time. You may want to drop in on irc.freenode.net #glassdoc

So there should be something for everybody.

The contents of glassdoc.org will be available as dumps of the database regularly (say weekly) free for download. So be aware that whatever you contribute you might get corrected by someone else :-)

--manfred

Reply to
Manfred
Loading thread data ...

The problem with a wiki - at least

formatting link
- that anything put up can be changed and the most relentless poster wins. The wikipedia entries on glass contain a number of errors and corrections or notes simply vanish.

Reply to
Mike Firth

I don't deny that this problem exists in some way, but I have been lurcking around wikipedia for quite a while now and only decided to try it myself when I learned that this can be dealt with rather easily.

The folks on wikipedia just explain that very well here

formatting link
you register (you don't even need to provide your email address) you get some extra features like a watchlist. So, when you contribute or edit an article you normally set it on your watchlist where you can see if that articles got changed and if it's in your interest. Remember when others add something constructive to articles you initialized that's a chance for you to profit from their experience. I almost forgot, in about a month or so there will be a service available that you get changes on articles you want to take care of mailed to you so you don't have to check them out explicitly every few days.

But also, this sort of collaboration lives from the agreement that articles are not owned actually but perceived as a collective achievement. I think that's the actual wonderful thing about it.

If it's a vandal you are just two mouse clicks away from a state of the article you can agree to. Here's an example of an version history.

formatting link
can compare whatever versions you want with one another.You can revert it to whatever version you want.No big deal. Nothing get's lost. Never.The only ones that really can mess things up are sysops, but even they are somewhat limited and they have to be given rights beforehand :-)And if it's really broken, a worst case scenario, I just restore the database to a time when it wasn't broken yet. Another thing is that currently anybody, registered or not, can edit _almost_ any page. This can be restricted to allowing only registered members to actually create or edit a page. But I didn't want to decide that myself since my motivation is only to provide the platform for others to use and I think that can be decided on later by the community in a democratic way.

There will also other _sysops_ be needed that get into that position by sufficient votes from others. I just beg for understanding that I will remain being a sysop whether elected or not 'cause I'm legally responsible for that stuff and have to remain control over the server :-) See how that works on Wikipedia here:

formatting link
I got drifted away :-)Sorry.

--manfred

Reply to
Manfred

Sorry Chris,

you are right. Men are morons. We know that :-) But on a wiki you can ban them morons and make their destructive actions undone. So it's an improvement. Really :-)

--manfred

Reply to
Manfred

Ah, yes. A RSS feed is already available. I've set it to update every 24 hours. You find it here

formatting link
's a link in the toolbox on the left side.

Reply to
Manfred

This isn't a problem exclusive to wiki.

Several thousand years ago, a herd of Isrealites voted to make themselves a golden cow to worship as God.

About two thousand years ago, a herd of people decided to cruicify Jesus Christ.

A few hundred years ago, a herd of people decided that black people were really not persons.

Sixty years ago, another herd of people decided that Jewish human beings were unworthy of the protection of the law, even from genocide.

Thirty years ago, another herd of people decided that they had no right to prevent the death of a human being whose mother found inconvenient.

Whoever thinks that any herd of human beings can arrive at the Truth unassisted, has done a very poor study of human history.

May God make you, and everyone whose life you touch, HOLY. May you let Him do so.

Chris (the unwise)

I w> The problem with a wiki - at least

formatting link
- that anything put

Reply to
Chris the Unwise

I don't think you really countered Mike's observation: the most relentless one wins, not the one that's right. Just because someone's right doesn't mean they want to spend their life arguing about it (which is in effect what can happen).

Good luck.

Mike Beede

Reply to
Mike Beede

Thank you for your profession of faith - now go and try to keep a change in wikipeda - the one with as much determination as you admire will win - there is RIGHT, Right, and right.

Reply to
Mike Firth

Though I've not literally shaken hands with them, I take it on faith that there are many men and women who did spend their entire life defending what they knew was Right.

Some spent their entire worldly fortunes, or watched as they were stolen from beneath them. They realized that their worldly fortunes _were_ beneath them, and counted them as nothing.

Some were turned away, or did turn away, from families and friends who didn't value the Truth more than themselves or each other.

Some laid down their lives for what they believed in.

The Martyrs realized that the lives with which they'd been entrusted were not their own, and were worth less than the entire collection of worldly goods if they did not glorify the Truth. They were ready to return their lives in order to glorify and defend the Truth.

And it's hard for me to defend the teaching of Christ at the risk of social discomfort.

Pray for me, a sinner.

Chris (the unwise)

May God make you, and everyone whose lives you touch, holy. May you let Him do so.

Mike Beede wrote:

Reply to
Chris the Unwise

Yes, the common thing among the herds is that they all believed in god. Post it in alt.athiest.

Jack

Reply to
nJb

y'all want to keep religion off the glass group? it could be subject matter for window related ideas but some of the pagans, Christians, atheists and Jews out there really don't want to hear your ravings.It is not allowed in schools either so why not save it for someone who cares!

Reply to
Michele Blank

Jack,

The common thing about the herds, even herds of devils, is that the individual persons or devils, as the case may be, comprising the herd were made by God. That they may or may not acknowledge that fact does not make it untrue. That they claim to act in the name of God does not necessarily make their claim true.

Perhaps there are, unfortunately, a sufficient number of avowed athiests to be called (very informally, of course) a "herd". They were not found by me in alt.athiest today, though, because I can't find it on my news server or on deja. Does this group exist?

Perhaps you wanted me to post it on alt.athiesm? Having scanned the alt newsgroup creation guide, I don't see that creating a newsgroup alt.athiest would be wise, if for no other reason than the fact that it would split or duplicate the lively discussions already to be found in alt.athiesm.*

Additionally, a group created for the sole purpose of posting one article under these circumstances may fit the description of a shock group, if in intent rather than in form.

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/alt-creation-guide

I do not think that wikis are necessarily evil. My first point wasn't even that wikis are not 100% reliable (although if they are read, they should be viewed as reflections of opinion rather than fact).

My first point in this thread was that a wiki is not the tool necessary to err. We've been doing that long before computers came about. My second was that human beings are prone to err, especially when they move as herds, and need more help than they can possibly provide on their own.

May God make you a saint. May you let Him do so.

Chris (the unwise)

nJb wrote:

Reply to
Chris the Unwise

"Unwise" and "stupid" don't mean the same thing. Please put your candle under a bushel, or risk having it put there forcibly as you drop to the bottom of everyone's bozo bin. There are places where it's acceptable to be a raving god-squad loonie, but this doesn't seem like one of them.

Reply to
Ron Parker

There, now you're somewhere where these things are discussed. I doubt the glass people want to hear it.

Jack

Reply to
nJb

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:16:23 -0700, nJb said in alt.atheism:

Atheists don't want to hear it either.

Reply to
Al Klein

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.