Why Not Wiki?

After reading the recent discussions or online albums, catalogs, etc. I thought why isn't there a wiki where collectors can post and share their collective knowledge on stamps around the world. After a bit of digging I did find a few attempts of stamp wikis on Wikia, but they have not seemed to take off.

I would think that a wiki would be a popular medium that would allow collectors around the world to provide info on stamps, and would be an excellent compliment to a forum such as this.

So, I don't quite understand the lack of interest (or possibly lack of awareness). Any ideas?

I don't think wiki is the technology appropriate to what you suggest. There are many stamp forums on line that offer an excellent medium for sharing information, experiences and buy / sell among other functions. This is one of them - I subscribe to 4 or 5m others - most are excellent. (the Delphi forum is a dud)

I think you miss the point of a wiki. A wiki is not a discussion forum. While many can contribute to the data/information, a wiki is a medium for people looking for specific information about a particular stamp such as date issued, watermarks, engraver, qty. issued, etc. People don't use wikis as discussion boards, or for buy/sell adds.

This (and other boards) is a discussion forum, and it serves that purpose very well. It provides and excellent resource for various questions about stamps, buying/selling/trading, etc. It does not serve as a good repository (catalog if you wish) of data on stamps from around the world.

I guess, the first hurdle is to understand the difference between a wiki and a bulletin/discussion board.

While many can contribute to the data/information
The only trouble I see with WIKI is ANYONE can post information whether it is correct or not..soooo who will police it..?

The Wikipedia Foundation has worked thru a lot of these issues, including what to do about food fights (edits & re-edits) in legitimately controversial topics, the use of an uber-editor collective, etc.

Among other things, the uber-editors have the ability to lock-out the pests, vandals, and idiots.

Since collectors are accustomed to using catalogs, most/all of the 'data repository' efforts have been in the form of a catalog.

There is something to be said for a familiar format, especially for the Old Folks.

The advantages of a wiki would include:

1) differing, flexible templates for typical entries (stamps, covers, etc) to which one person can contribute what they know, while other folks complete the entry over time;

2) contributors contribute their time & effort & knowledge to a public (and, hopefully persistent) resource. Any online catalog effort may be wonderful, but I don't know if it will be monetized, archived, or disappear.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

thats all well and find..But you did not answer the question..Who is going to police it..I am almost positive WIKI people no nothing about stamps..They would not have a clue as to what is correct on re-edit after re-edit.

A central repository of philatelic knowledge would be great, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. There is a massive amount of philatelic knowledge that's been accumulated over the years, but it's so diffuse that sometimes collectors/exhibitors think they're doing original research when they are repeating something that was already done decades before. However, that past research might have been published in some obscure journal in 1937 so virtually no one today is aware of it. As others have mentioned, one of the best knowledge repositories are the very archives of this forum and others like it.

My pipe dream is a site where you can look up any stamp ever issued, get hard data about that stamp, and read additional articles that may have been written about it over the years, with links to related issues and terms. I'll add that to the pipe dream I often have about a whiz-bang killer app that will catalogue my stamps for me, inventory them and print album pages. Neither one is likely to happen anytime soon, even though both are technically possible.

The problem is not technical in nature, but getting people to actually do it. When most people - and I count myself first on this list - say someone should do this or that, they mean anyone but themselves. When the rubber meets the road, most people don't want to donate their time or money to such causes, even though they'll grumble about the current state of affairs. For the record, I'd personally be happy doing some "grunt work" like raw data entry, but I'm not qualified to write articles about anything. There are only so many philatelic experts and near-experts in the world, and most of them probably have enough to do without writing articles for a stamp wiki, even as good and noble a project as it would be.

"Wiki people" are just experts or knowlegeable people in their respective fields. On the current Wikipedia, they wouldn't have someone who's an expert in musical instruments police an article on particle physics. The stamp articles currently on Wikipedia - and there are many - are written by people knowledgeable about them, not chemists or gardners. If someone changes those articles, the original creator of that article is notified and has a chance to accept the change or edit it out. If you'd be talking about rolling this into the existing Wikipedia, it would just be a matter of having a handful of stamp experts designated as the "police". If you're talking about a new, separate project, you'd do the same.

Would there be bad data on occasion? Sure. It goes with the territory. But over time knowledgeable people would weed out the bad data and replace it with good data. These types of projects take awhile to grow into something really large and useful. It would start out with a small number of articles containing a higher-than-acceptable rate of errors. Over time, with good participation, more articles are posted and the information contained in them becomes more and more reliable. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

The fact is that there can be bad data in any publication, online or otherwise. And any community that shares information is self-policing in the end. Stamp collecting only has itself to be accountable to. The world at large doesn't care if I fake an expensive stamp and sell it at an exorbitant price. Only the stamp community cares. If we remain so afraid of errors that we never move forward, well... we wouldn't have a postal system, much less a hobby.

I've used various wikis on many, many occasions, and they're fantastic sources of information. Are they scholarly? Well, only as scholarly as the writers. But most Wikipedia articles are now heavily cited and very well written by people who know what they're talking about. The ones that aren't very good often stick out like sore thumbs as badly done. A good wiki also flags opinionated or biased writing, so that eliminates a lot of ax-grinding.

As ArtfulHinger pointed out there are no "WIKI people" who own the wiki. It is a community effort. There are people who choose to participate in the wiki site and add data. The community as a whole validates data and can add. It would be reasonably easy to identify and correct faulty edits if the community at large participates as it does in things like this forum.

(For those unfamiliar with a wiki, or who mistakenly assume this is an attempt to usurp this discussion forum please refrain from getting your underwear in a bunch. As I said a wiki provides a different type of collective knowledge sharing that would augment a discussion forum...not replace it.)

The German wikipedia is loaded with information on German stamps.

I have used several different wiki software over the years, the best being Confluence.

If we disregard the problem of validating information, the biggest obstacle to wikis are in my opinion the complexity of the software. You can make great looking pages with tables, galleries - anything is possible. If you know how. Most people don't.

Example: I create a stunning 10-page display of everything there is to know about a stamp. Contains tables, sections, hyperlinks, image gallery, attached files etc.

People not on the same 'wiki experience' level have zero chance of adding anything without messing everything up.

Another challenge is consistency. Any publication (book, article, website etc.) needs a consistent layout to be useful. A worldwide stamp-wiki will have 10000s of pages. Even though you made some sample/standard pages for people to use, will they?

Don't underestimate the work Wikipedia does behind the scenes.

Before I launched my website, I looked into what backend/CMS to use.
Wikis was quickly ruled out.

This IS a stamp collectors' wiki:

http://www.stampsoftheworld.co.uk/w...of_the_World

It's pretty well established. They have projects going, and chat areas. As stated above, the purpose of a wiki isn't really a place to share knowledge - that's more the role of forums like this - but it is a place where factual data, and catalogues can be compiled. The one I linked to has the potential to be the best online catalogue in my view, but it needs more input.

Here's an example of a thread with information that begs to be tabulated:

https://goscf.com/t/43221 ... who do you use to expertise?

A fair minded summary would include service name & area of expertise.

Footnotes for each entry would link back to the endorser's post on SCF.

The subject could be subjective, eg, "SCF posts on expertisers & expertising".

Other snippets of information from elsewhere on SCF could be added to that skeleton.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

We should do this. Seriously, I want to see this happen. I think it would be amazing, and extremely helpful to young collectors who are really comfortable using the Internet. And like Wikipedia, it would grow over time, particularly as younger collectors grow in the hobby and get involved.

Ringo, thank you so much. This didn't come up in my search, but this is exactly what I was thinking about. The exhibit and postmark sections are very nice touches.

I will also contact the owner to see if the template can include more info on stamps and will start participating.