AQCluster WikiP Discussion

Main ESIP page >> Main Cluster page >> AQ Telecons

---

Topics

Use cases: Who is the main Cluster page for?

1. recruiting participants from public
2. updates for new members
3. a little of both

How much narrative? More or less or combination:

1. Here is an example of possible middle ground:

QuickSummaryPlus

Use of "discussion" tab

1. Keep content discussions in the wiki itself
2. Use "talk" pages to discuss page rendering or refactoring only

Taking discussion out of the wiki makes a hidden stump that can't be expanded or refactored easily essentially killing potential outshoots of the discussion. "Backpages" are really for meta discussions: discussions about the discussion.

Group actions and the wiki

1. What is polite? When do you ask for a group discussion?
2. Who maintains the top level pages? Should they be locked down?

========================

---

Below is discussion (wrested from the back of the Telecon Page)

---

Wikithoughts -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey folks - This week I attended a good workshop on 3D visualization of AQ data. (i can talk about that too on the telecon). A couple state AQ forecasters were there and they articulated the needs that their community has for integrated, interoperable, standardized, accessible data very well. So, I buttonholed a few of these folks and told them that we could really use their voices in the ESIP AQ cluster.

When I was writing to them yesterday, I sent them a few links to the wiki. This got me thinking...

I'd like to propose focusing the wiki more on content and information. Perhaps this means we need to focus less on workspaces, the main content of which is links.

I'm willing to hack away at this, but not unless this makes sense to others (and I don't have to do it all myself!!! Everything on wikis is by consensus, after all). For one thing, I think we need to start paring down each other's contributions more than we have in the past. Generally, we just keep adding pages and links. I think we need to start cutting and deleting a lot more.

Some quick brainstorm on how I'd improve pages:

• More narrative. What is this page for. Complete sentences
• Less links. Too many links to inactive areas. too many subjects 'described' by a set of links
• More editing, less simple addition and new pages. When we keep old pages around and just add new ones that make things less clear. Example: Workspace for Data Summit and the follow-up to the data summit.

Thoughts?

Re: Wikithoughts -- Stefan Falke (Sfalke) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

David, Good ideas. I think the wiki could be improved by providing more "english" on the front page for people not actively participating in the cluster and who are looking for AQ data and info. We need to think about the various visitor types to the wiki and what is needed to make their visit meaningful. I'd rather not "delete" pages but rather re-organize them to highlight the important content.

It sounds like the state forecasters were interested in standardized data access. While the wiki can help describe and direct people to that type of access, I don't think it is the interface for that. Following GEOSS logic, catalogs and portals would be other places where that access occurs. So in addition to fixing up the wiki we should consider what are the AQ catalogs and portals (and how are data/services described and accessed through them). More on the call...

Re: Re: Wikithoughts -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 13:50, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey thanks Stefan,

I'm advocating for more narrative/plain english on many front pages - i.e. the workspace page for the Ad hoc committee, the workspace page for the exceptional events, etc.

Deleting pages causes issues, I agree we want to avoid that. I do think we need less links and more updating of pages / less creation of new pages. IMO this makes the work taking place on the site less clear.

You are right that the ESIP wiki should not try to be the interface for data access, sorry if my rant was not clear. I meant to just mention that interaction to explain my train of thought. I'd love it if we could draw these folks into ESIP - I think we need their input - and my concern is that our interface with new folks needs work.

Re: Wikithoughts -- Rhusar 04:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Our thinking is is here...AGU Spring Collaboration Tools, see slide 6

• The purpose of workspaces is to work - to collaboratively produce content/outcome ..so its not either workspace or content, but workspace for creating content..
• As you say, the Workspaces should be better organized, simplified etc...
• Ideas on how to facilitate and capture the wisdom of the crowd, and present the outcome in a more orderly fashion? Try them on the AQ cluster 'site'..

Re: Re: Wikithoughts -- David McCabe (Davidmccabe) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the reply Rudy, looking forward to the discussion. Perhaps I am just pushing for more of the product content to be visible on the wiki...