Sooooo, I was thinking….
A book I was reading referenced Wikipedia. If you don’t know it, it’s the online “free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit”. The theory is that if millions of people are adding content which is peer-reviewed, that the accumulated knowledge will exceed that collected by any single commercial enterprise.
That converged with an oft-repeated theme here, which is how frequently certain answers are given, and how tedious it gets to answer the same question multiple times over the years.
That converged with time spent trying to build products and websites, and trying to develop new markets.
#
So, the question is…would something like a Wiki-construction work? A web site where people can contribute articles on a wide variety of construction articles…I’m thinking of Blodgett’s article on building casement’s, for example…and they become part of collection of construction information for the ages. In the thread about Taunton looking for authors, I was struck by how many people learned that their article ideas were labeled “too esoteric” by the powers that be. (I have one of those responses, too. Seems to be a well-worn phrase.) Well, wouldn’t a Wikipedia-like site with a construction focus be an natural place for all these too-esoteric articles? And also for the mainstream articles, too? I realize that wouldn’t necessarily generate revenue for Taunton or the JLC owners, etc, but that’s not our purpose as individuals. We contribute info here be/c it’s fun to share and it’s useful to people, and not to feed the bottom line of one organization or another.
I’m also thinking of this for the area of the construction industry I work in…insulated shotcrete houses. “Too esoteric” for Taunton…no surprise there…but absolutely of interest to thousands of others. So, how should they get their information? One manufacturer has a web site, but it’s focused on only info that sells its products. There’s been a feeble attempt at an industry-oriented web site, but that’s too much work for the people doing it, with no payoff. But there’s still a need for information.
If there was a community-contributed information source, then it could be built and grown by everyone in the industry, and by every homeowner of one of the domes contributing what they learned and pix of their project. The body of info could grow faster than ANY company could afford to do.
#
So, any of this make sense? Any reason why the success of Wikipedia (or similar) couldn’t apply to this industry? Think out loud about the idea…whatcha think?
Edited 12/26/2005 5:26 pm ET by CloudHidden
Replies
I've been thinking the same thing for while too and was talking to my brother about just that just yesterday at Christmas. So many of my own posts now are often just repeats or reposts of something I've said many times in the past. I use Wikipedia.org probably ever single day for looking up something and have been thinking about putting together a building and remodeling specific one for a while if we can just work out the technology and maintenance and find the time to get it started and promoted.
View Image
A recent reputable study indicated that Wikipedia was almost as accurate as the pricey, commercial encylopedias. Supposdly, they are going to tighten up the "paper trail" when people edit entries (after the much publicized case where a former aid to the Kennedys was "jokingly" listed as having had a part in the assassinations.) Should be able to make it work with no more controversy than that surrounding Intelligent Design and evolution.... The problem I see is on those issues in the past where we have had at least two opposing camps - with more than a few "flames" ensuing. It would help in those instances if there is some way to clearly divide the entries into those in support of one approach whereas those supporting the different approach would be in their own section.
Yeah I can see the entries for vented attic, wormdrive saw, sidewinder, dewally, pooter cable and dryvit already.
Don't forget the question of: Does cedar rot Tyvek?
The goal of Wikipedia is a NPOV--neutral point of view. Present info in a way that both supporters and opponents can agree.In an article on concrete domes, for example, we don't have to say that they are better or worse than log homes. We can describe their construction, and their engineering characteristics, and leave it as that. Information doesn't have to include all the judgments people make.
http://quittintime.infopop.cc/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=howto
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
A little more research...
Wikipedia is built off of MediaWiki, at http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/ . Not surprising that it's based off a sourceforge project...lots of good open source software there.
The more I think about it, the more a use there seems to be for a central source of peer-reviewed information. It's amazing how much is presented here and essentially lost--the half-life of a thread is probably one or two weeks. Instead, an article that is researched, reviewed, vetted, built upon, sourced, linked, and completely searchable would be useful almost forever. This goes way, way beyond a forum thread or a simple listing of articles. The challenge is, how to set its boundaries and how to do it right...
I think that is an excellent idea. If it is of any use to you to get started, the link that Bobl provided to Quittintime is available as a starting and archival point if you need somewhere central to kick off from. We can change the setup so that it can be peer reviewed and allow original contributors to retain copyright.
best wishes
Markhttp://www.quittintime.com
Hi Mark,From what I've read, a huge benefit of Wikipedia is the collaborative entry and editing. Speaking strictly conceptually, for something of this magnitude to work, "articles" would have to be able to be contributed and organized and edited from all sorts of sources and directions without any one else having to be involved, not even as an administrative formality.Just thinking out loud...
"and completely searchable would be useful almost forever."That's the key. Imagine the money to be made by Google Adsense too:)It looks wide open for somebody that has the time.
what you are talking about is what i have heard described as a think tank; one example was where each of the members answers a question, then after reading their peers answers and allowing time for thought answers are revised and refined.
and while we are on the subject (similar vein IMO) i want to bring up artificial intelligence. some years ago (1994) i was working in san fran bay area on a BART project. job was to widen and spread existing overpasses to make room for BART station (like a subway) in center.
my job as a bridge carpenter was layout man, after one side of forms are erected for abutments i place nails and strings to indicate top of concrete in pour. the ironworkers then place reinforcing steel so it will be 2" from surface of crete for max strength, important to get right in earthquake country.
complicated angles and elevations at abutments, back wall of abutment is at a 15 degree banter, abutment is not perpendicular to bridge, and then there is a slight radius (super) to the roadway as well as slight camber. what i like to call a triple compound angle, as opposed to the compound angle of crown moulding or valley rafters.
anyway when i do the layout from the numbers and elevations given to me by the project engineer and its not looking right i am thinking how am i going to convince this engineer his numbers are wrong? i have enough information to do the layout from three different starting points, and when he sees the nails and strings going from A to B to C etc from 3 different starts not lining up with each other he is convinced i am right.
when i copyrighted my idea for a layout check program to be used with field determined as builts for heavy industrial construction projects i describe in detail the step by step method of laying out from different starting points to see if they arrive at the same spot, in asking and answering questions in a very small way for one very small activity, i am writing a program that thinks as i would think to solve a problem. ( i contend that thinking is asking and answering questions) and when this is combined in a giant wikipedia with gazillions of other small ways of thinking to solve a specific problem it will eventually extrapolate to the point that AI exists.
so there you heard it here first, and when i am running for re-election as vice president and i claim to have invented Artificial Inteligence you only have to look to the archives of breaktime for the proof!
The idea has some merit.
At times I feel that if another question comes up about push-in connections on a receptacle, 15A receptacles on 20A circuit or why all connections have to be in a box blood will shoot out of my ears.
While an editable common file has some worth I have my doubts. What works for the Wikipedia, and its communal orientation and atmosphere, may not work here. It is worth looking into but I think the easier approach may be a simpler FAQ file. Set up some mechanism to allow people to vote a subject and, perhaps, particularly good responses into the file.
Perhaps some sort of voting/commentary mechanism. Something along the lines of two moderators or five reasonably coherent users would submit the question to the FAQ file. Then something like a ninety day period anyone could go to a separate 'proposed FAQ' file and vote or comment. It it gets lots of interest it goes in. If it is too esoteric perhaps not.
Probably best to subdivide this FAQ file into sub categories like: framing, electrical, plumbing. Once the questions are established a similar concept of: proposed answer and vote and/or commentary would answer the individual questions in the FAQ file.
I'm not sure about any ability of moderators or others to edit responses. I tend to chose and couch my terms as carefully as I can and editing my response may end up creating unintended meanings. That isn't to say my, or anyone else's, posts are inviolable or even correct but editing is a tricky business.
Check this site out for Wiki info; http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/
Yeah, I mentioned Source Forge...I've gone there for another piece of work. Fascinating "species" in the evolution of computers and software.Here's the response I got back from the Wikipedia team:Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore not the place for how-tos
(among other reasons, because they advocate rather than document). However,
Wikipedia's sister project, also a Wikimedia project, known as Wikibooks, is
the ideal place for a how-to. You could create an online "textbook" project,
with pages on all of these things. If this is would suit your needs, this
should be an ideal solution for you, and we would greatly appreciate your
contributions. Wikibooks' Community Portal is located at
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Community_Portal>. If that doesn't suit your needs, you might want to check out MediaWiki's
website and consider downloading for free the same "wiki" software that powers
Wikipedia for your own use, at <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki>.Yours sincerely,
Dominic McDevitt-Parks###Quick and useful answer...pretty impressive.
Hey I checked out Wkibooks, pretty slick, So are you going to be the WikiCloud lord of the construction book?
actually I think it is a d@mn fine idea.
>Hey I checked out Wkibooks, pretty slick, So are you going to be the WikiCloud lord of the construction book?If not me, then whom? If not now, then when?Ha ha ha!Actually, just snooped around and hit on differential equations. Saw a spelling mistake, fixed it, saw how the process worked. Pretty cool.I can see all sorts of possibilities. The key will be to define a good book structure, 'cause that will set the stage for all contributions that follow by all the experts who venture in.You'd think I have nothing better to do...
Cloud,
Like you and others here, I have had something similar in the back of my head for a while.
I have considered the index, since I am designing a web site that has links to constructiuon related sites and the 'Table of Contents' of it has the same issues as that of a Construction Wiki.
Howz-about stealing a detailed residential estimate layout as the TOC?
Example (from here:) BTW, I chopped da zhid out of it for this ex.
Foundation Materials
CMU Block
Mortar
Sand
Reinforcing Steel
Horizontal Reinforcing
Brick Ties
Batter Board Layout
Piers
Concrete Filled Cells
Poured Concrete Walls
Other
Concrete Slab Mateirals
Backfill
Sand/Gravel
Poly Vapor Barrier
Welded Wire Mesh
Anchor Bolts
Reiforcing Steel
Concrete
Form Boards
Expansion Joints
Other
Foundation - Miscellaneous
Termite Pretreatment
Poly Under Crawlspace
Stryofoam Insulation
Other
Framing
I have a suspicion that the people on these Wiki projects (wiki is a variant on a Hawaiian word for "quick") have thought through the editorial and collaborative aspects of contributing info pretty thoroughly. It'd sure be nice to not have to invent yet another wheel.I could easily imagine a topic like "why to not use push-in connectors" being done once, and then referring to it on future occasions. Who would do it? Anyone. But it would be reviewed and edited, per the Wiki process, by as many people as necessary over time till there was nothing left to change. Knowledge convergence.Certainly the Wikibook would be easier to search than Prospero!!!!!!What I'm wondering--just as a curiosity--is what Taunton's first reaction is. Would they see it as an opportunity, or competition, or nothing of any particular consequence? Andy? Certainly the idea didn't have it's genesis with regard to anything produced by their company, but I imagine they'd keep an eye on each source of info related to construction or their other fields of endeavor.I'm gonna snoop around Wikibooks some more...
Why are you even thinking that Taunton even wants to or needs to be in on something like a Wiki?
View Image
My only thought was that they'd _maybe_ not be a fan of their forum being used to discuss placing content in another venue. Wouldn't want to misuse this forum.Edit: by "content" I don't mean copying stuff from here, of course. But I could see encouraging David Thomas to write an article on sizing hvac systems, for example, or Boss to write some kind of article on trusses. Then, when a question comes up for the umpteenth time, a link could be made to the entry instead of repeating everything.Don't know if Wiki-whatever is or is not appropriate...just like the idea of aggregating the collective knowledge through lots of individual contributions and collaborative effort...whatever the repository.
Edited 12/26/2005 10:30 pm ET by CloudHidden
I agree. The repository can be changed/ moved. In the meantime gathering the information is the initial goal. It's a great idea and would fill a niche need. There is so much non traditional/ alternative methods worldwide that all can benefit from if it was accessible.http://www.quittintime.com
The big question is where to put it. I like the MediaWiki process...collaborative editing works really well and on first and second thought, would work well for residential construction information. Plus, the software for doing so already exists in the public domain through the MediaWiki project.But I don't think that either Wikibooks or Wikipedia is appropriate, based on their stated charters. They seem to only want stuff that will be covered by thousands of people to get the full benefit of team editing. Those topics judged too esoteric by FHB's editors would likely be too esoteric for the Wikibooks braintrust, too. Which would miss the whole point.But where to put it so that there's a critical mass of eyeballs both to make use of the info and to provide the info?Again, thinking out loud, I think a major consideration would be the inclusion/exclusion of commercial material. Would an article on creating a no-threshold tile floor be able to include specific product names and link to the manufacturers? I think it must, to be useful. And I think it must also be able to entertain "debates" like venting attics or not, if it can be civil. Wikipedia requires a NPOV, but I don't know that Wiki-residential would need to do so with the same intensity--there's something to be gained from allowing alternative points of view, especially be/c in our jobs we have to choose from alternative methods and products every day.Ya know, I could see someone like Taunton providing the technical help and space for this, and overlapping it with advertising or links to their books/mags. I could also see them or any other publisher deciding it would cannibalize business. It'd be interesting to explore this as a business model...
maybe JLC would be more likely to take it up. Your point on needing to include industry is a valid one.
But where to put it so that there's a critical mass of eyeballs both to make use of the info and to provide the info?
Going back to this question. The first response that comes to mind is Google, but how to do that I don't know. I'm sure that in the future the ability of search engines leading people to specific topics is going to get better and better, so for now that leaves the initial effort of courting contributors to write industry/ job specific articles as a starting point ( content ) which can be used as a foundation.
As a hobby I restore old motorcycles. ( and I mean old . I have 1908 and a 1912 models ) Because of their age, it is a long term project gathering parts, often making them from scratch. It could well be another ten years before I see them on the road, but in the meantime I'm saving stuff from going to the trash and slowly building a store of both parts and knowledge from loss.
Such a project as you have envisioned is most likely to be long term one, but should not be written off because of the possibilty of not having "instant" success.
( also thinking out aloud )http://www.quittintime.com
The problem with having a new site is the vast amount of programing involved (or money to by the code). I think Wikipedia would work fine. You would start off with an article on building a house and branch off on electrical, trusses, plumbing, insulation, heating, windows.....etc. It could be started in a matter of hours.You get out of life what you put into it......minus taxes.
Marv
Interesting thought, but I'll toss in a devil's advocate view for you: My geek kid says Wikipedia is thought of as "Schrodinger's Encyclopedia" due to the fact that it can help you or totally screw you up... back to the fact that with Wikipedia anyone can make an entry. Wikipedia is a neat idea which is unreliable as a reference.
Life and suffering are inseparable.