Permaculture Database

[jedd <jedd@progsoc.org>]

 Hi Rich,

> Well the wiki does not proclude using other software. However I think
> you'll find that the wiki solution is both simple and powerful and
> eliminates a lot of the grunt work with system plumbing. In the past
> we've got bogged down with endless discussions over systems and a very
> long development process before we actually got any new content online.

 Solution?  You've been around IT types too long.  ;)

 Solutions imply problems, and I suspect the problem is that we
 haven't identified what the problem really is .. consequently any
 solutions we implement are unlikely to solve them.

 I get that there's a fine line between procrastination and productive
 effort.  For a single-person project with a readily conceivable rough
 goal, jumping in and cutting code often works.  I wrote an online
 banking system for our LETS mob a year ago using this method, but
 in that instance there weren't any other resources to call on / defer
 to, and I had a good mental image of what the system would look
 like, and of what basic functionality it had to offer.

 As I understand it .. there isn't a lot of consensus about what this
 new system (or systems) is/are meant to provide, let alone look like,
 let alone how it'll be maintained.  One thing I do know is that it's
 going to be massive, especially so if it's done properly.

 And the other big thing that IT has taught me is to avoid re-work,
 or rather, avoid setting yourself up for re-work.  If the guild
 database (for example) is a lot of free form text pages that describe
 different guilds, then there's a lot of re-work involved to push that
 back into a structured database later.  The same concern applies for
 any free form text for any other knowledge recording, of course.

> Now fixed. I've left a message about this on your talk page

 Ah, cool, yes, found it.  Good.  Taa.

 Should the contents of the toolbox change depending on context?

 I thought it was kind of like the navigation box.  Perhaps I've been
 playing with CMS things too much lately.  I find it confusing that
 after selecting one item from the toolbox, the next page shows the
 toolbox with only two items in it - upload files and the item that
 I've already selected (and that I'm at now, so I really don't need
 that menu item anymore).  A config thing, I'm sure.

> Yes on wiki communication does encourages a different mode of
> communication. Email mailing lists are not the perfect solution either,
> theres about 1000 odd messages which conatin multiple interweaving
> threads in the old pcpdb archive and finding the relavent post can get
> tricky. With a wiki there is a lot of scope for refactoring discussions
> and a particular thread can be made into a seperate page for easier
> access later. Attribution does not seem to be a problem as long as
> people stick to the convention of signing their posts using --~~~~.
> Indeed as the revision history is available you can check that if you
> really want to know who said what.
>
> The other advantage with wiki mode is that there is a strong connect
> between content and discussion, they are only a click away.

 Whereas I find it easier and more convenient to use inbox filtering
 into folders in my mail client and the search tool within same.  I'm
 blessed with a decent mail client (kmail) so other people may have
 less positive experiences, particularly if they're using some broken
 client like LookOut, and all the more so if they're not adept at using
 the features of their mail client.

 I also like the fact that I can read offline - less and less useful
 over time, but still has its place.

 In any case, threads and filtering give me the same functionality that
 you attribute to a wiki, hence I can't see the appeal.

 Attribution - if it depends on someone doing the right thing - is
 probably not a safe assumption for exactly that reason.  The single
 most irritating aspect of 'threads' on a wiki is the difficulty in
 identifying what is new since your last reading - with mail it's
 obvious what is new.

 Content and discussion is typically a click on the reply-button (or
 a press of the r key for us mouse-haters) with mail too.

 Yeah yeah .. call me old-fashioned.

 If the discussion - a linear thing for most humans - is to be spread
 up and down throughout a page or two on the wiki - then that's
 where it'll be.  It would obviously be the worst of both worlds to try
 to run two concurrent discussions on mail and a wiki.  I'm assuming
 there isn't an elegant mail gateway from mediawiki .. ?  I can't see
 how it could send out a diff of the page from one update to the other
 and still be readable.

 I've got some thoughts on db design and interface requirements that
 I've been jotting down over the past few months -- I'll look at wrapping
 it up onto a single page on the site shortly for subsequent discussion
 by the cognoscenti.

 Jedd.