Some general comments

[Colin Gillespie]

Dear All,

Just a few general comments:

1. Would a Google doc be better suited for this type of collaborative
exercise? (This is a question that I don't know the answer too).

2. The group is called "10 rule for contributing to ml and forums". So
far all the points have focused on asking questions, not answering
questions.

3. Initially, I would suggest that we don't limit the number of
points. After a few weeks we can combine and prune the points as
needed.

Cheers

Colin

--
Dr Colin Gillespie
http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~ncsg3/

[Michael Schubert]

First of all, hello everyone and good luck with this effort which to
me seems like a very good idea.
I don't know if I'll find the time to actively contribute, but here
are some general thoughts.

> 1. Would a Google doc be better suited for this type of collaborative
> exercise? (This is a question that I don't know the answer too).

The advantage of a wiki is that changes can be attributed to persons.
which a Google Doc is as far as I know not capable of.

The most important thing I'm missing is a Wikipedia-style discussion
page, to discuss ideas before entering them. This approach would be
much more usable than the mailing list for this specific task.

> 2. The group is called "10 rule for contributing to ml and forums". So
> far all the points have focused on asking questions, not answering
> questions.

While it is true that there is a lot that one can do wrong in
answering as well, I would say that people that answer questions are
generally more likely to have followed the community for a while (e.g.
asking questions and getting answers to them), thus I would see this
to be less of an issue. Still, there could be 1 point covering them.

> 3. Initially, I would suggest that we don't limit the number of
> points. After a few weeks we can combine and prune the points as
> needed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Colin
>
> --
> Dr Colin Gillespiehttp://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~ncsg3/

Also, Giovanni, what are your thoughts on changing semantics so far? I
don't want to edit them right away, but there were a few lines where
the English could be improved (then again, I'm not a native speaker
either).

Regarding question 4, I think there's some unnecessary repetition.
Again, I don't want to delete but discuss it. What's the best approach
of doing this on WikiGenes?

Michael

[Giovanni Marco Dall'Olio]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Michael Schubert <msch...@gmail.com> wrote:

First of all, hello everyone and good luck with this effort which to
me seems like a very good idea.
I don't know if I'll find the time to actively contribute, but here
are some general thoughts.

Welcome to this initiative :-)
 

> 1. Would a Google doc be better suited for this type of collaborative
> exercise? (This is a question that I don't know the answer too).

The advantage of a wiki is that changes can be attributed to persons.
which a Google Doc is as far as I know not capable of.

Exactly, the main advantage of the wiki is that changes can be attributed to persons. I know that not everybody is comfortable with the wikigenes interface, but it has some features that may be useful for this type of initiative: an advanced authorship-tracking technology, a WYSIWYG editor, a way to handle references, etc..
In any case, at the end I will also take into account the contributions to the discussion in this mailing list; and if you are not comfortable with the wiki, we can discuss some minor details on google/docs, zoho, wave, or any other technology, provided that the final version will be put in the wiki.
There are many possible technologies that can be used for doing this, but a wiki and a mailing list seemed to be a fair option, as most people should be familiar with them.
 

The most important thing I'm missing is a Wikipedia-style discussion
page, to discuss ideas before entering them. This approach would be
much more usable than the mailing list for this specific task.

I am not too familiar with discussions on Wikis. I thought that since the document we are writing is bigger than the average wikipedia entry, the mailing list would be more capable to handle discussions.
 

> 2. The group is called "10 rule for contributing to ml and forums". So
> far all the points have focused on asking questions, not answering
> questions.

While it is true that there is a lot that one can do wrong in
answering as well, I would say that people that answer questions are
generally more likely to have followed the community for a while (e.g.
asking questions and getting answers to them), thus I would see this
to be less of an issue. Still, there could be 1 point covering them.

This is our fault.. Before launching the initiative, we (me and the two people from my group who participated to this) were not sure on whether to focus the document on asking questions or to contributing in general.
I think that it is easier if we focus the document only on asking questions; covering how to contribute to an online community may be too difficult for a single document.
 

> 3. Initially, I would suggest that we don't limit the number of
> points. After a few weeks we can combine and prune the points as
> needed.

Nice idea, we will do this way.
 

Also, Giovanni, what are your thoughts on changing semantics so far? I
don't want to edit them right away, but there were a few lines where
the English could be improved (then again, I'm not a native speaker
either).

There are two ways to do this on WIkiGenes.
1. use the 'Discussion' page http://www.wikigenes.org/e/art/d/138.html
2. put a comment. You have to write the text of the comment, then select it, and click on the 'Define this text as a comment' button on the editor interface.

In any case, don't be afraid of making changes to the document. All the previous versions will be saved; so if you think that you can improve a phrase or a paragraph, do it without worries.
 

Regarding question 4, I think there's some unnecessary repetition.
Again, I don't want to delete but discuss it. What's the best approach
of doing this on WikiGenes?

Michael

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ten rules for contributing to mailing lists and forums" group.
To post to this group, send email to ten-rules-for-contrib...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ten-rules-for-contributing-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ten-rules-for-contributing-to-ml-and-forums?hl=en.

--
Giovanni Dall'Olio, phd student
Department of Biologia Evolutiva at CEXS-UPF (Barcelona, Spain)

My blog on bioinformatics: http://bioinfoblog.it

[Colin Gillespie]

>> > 1. Would a Google doc be better suited for this type of collaborative
>> > exercise? (This is a question that I don't know the answer too).
>>
>> The advantage of a wiki is that changes can be attributed to persons.
>> which a Google Doc is as far as I know not capable of.

Please don't think I'm trying to push google docs, I don't have a
strong position either way.

>
> Exactly, the main advantage of the wiki is that changes can be attributed to
> persons. I know that not everybody is comfortable with the wikigenes
> interface, but it has some features that may be useful for this type of
> initiative: an advanced authorship-tracking technology, a WYSIWYG editor,

I have used google docs a few times in the last couple of weeks. So
far I have been stunned at the slickness of the authorship-tracking
interface. It completely outstrips the MoinMoin wiki and wikipedia in
terms of authorship tracking. Yesterday I was one of three people who
was editing a document at precisely the same time. I could watch in
real time as someone edited the paragraph above as I altered the
paragraph below.

Another great feature I discovered was that you can highlight a piece
of text and then start a "discussion on it". This would alleviate the
need for a discussion page.

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. So whatever
people want.

> a
> way to handle references, etc..
> In any case, at the end I will also take into account the contributions to
> the discussion in this mailing list; and if you are not comfortable with the
> wiki, we can discuss some minor details on google/docs, zoho, wave, or any
> other technology, provided that the final version will be put in the wiki.
> There are many possible technologies that can be used for doing this, but a
> wiki and a mailing list seemed to be a fair option, as most people should be
> familiar with them.

The only trouble with a mailing list is that ideas can get lost very
easily.

>
>>
>> The most important thing I'm missing is a Wikipedia-style discussion
>> page, to discuss ideas before entering them. This approach would be
>> much more usable than the mailing list for this specific task.
>
> I am not too familiar with discussions on Wikis. I thought that since the
> document we are writing is bigger than the average wikipedia entry, the
> mailing list would be more capable to handle discussions.
>
>>
>> > 2. The group is called "10 rule for contributing to ml and forums". So
>> > far all the points have focused on asking questions, not answering
>> > questions.
>>
>> While it is true that there is a lot that one can do wrong in
>> answering as well, I would say that people that answer questions are
>> generally more likely to have followed the community for a while (e.g.
>> asking questions and getting answers to them), thus I would see this
>> to be less of an issue. Still, there could be 1 point covering them.
>
> This is our fault.. Before launching the initiative, we (me and the two
> people from my group who participated to this) were not sure on whether to
> focus the document on asking questions or to contributing in general.
> I think that it is easier if we focus the document only on asking questions;
> covering how to contribute to an online community may be too difficult for a
> single document.

I suppose that's what I was obliquely trying to get at - should we
change the title.

>
>>
>> > 3. Initially, I would suggest that we don't limit the number of
>> > points. After a few weeks we can combine and prune the points as
>> > needed.
>
> Nice idea, we will do this way.
>
>>
>> Also, Giovanni, what are your thoughts on changing semantics so far? I
>> don't want to edit them right away, but there were a few lines where
>> the English could be improved (then again, I'm not a native speaker
>> either).
>
> There are two ways to do this on WIkiGenes.
> 1. use the 'Discussion' page http://www.wikigenes.org/e/art/d/138.html
> 2. put a comment. You have to write the text of the comment, then select it,
> and click on the 'Define this text as a comment' button on the editor
> interface.

A combination of both these ideas would be good. Hopefully it should
be obvious what merits a discussion and what constitutes further
discussion.

Cheers

Colin