Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-16-2011, 12:19 AM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 104
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
And yet, after some discussion I seem to recall, PF itself uses the official name in its lens review articles. The official name is "SMC Pentax-DA 21mm F3.2 Limited". Shouldn't the wiki and PF be consistent at least?
It makes sense to make the entry match the most common way someone is going to search for it.

I doubt too many people searching for a lens are going to type in "smc Pentax" in front of the name of every lens.

Should every lens page also be listed with all the the lens coating codes? (ED, IF, AL, etc.). Again, I don't see people searching for lenses this way -- unless there are two lenses that are otherwise identical, in which case it would be necessary to distinguish them by their differences in the page titles.

02-16-2011, 01:56 AM   #17
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,758
Original Poster
I agree here. We can drop the technical terms from the page title as long as the full name of the lens is mentioned somewhere within the article. Links to our lens review database and in-depth review (if available) would also be nice for each lens (under a see also h2).

So a proper page title would be:

Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4

And the "official" lens name by PF standards would be: SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4

And yes, I know that Pentax likes writing the SMC in lowercase, but then it's not an acronym anymore!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-16-2011, 02:03 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I'm pretty sure it qualifies as fair use; if not I'm sure Michelle will give us permission.
I guess we both need to check the details of "fair use" again, but I'm fairly certain copying an entire article over without the author's permission is not fair use. Even a rephrased version should credit the original author and cite the source. I'd like to avoid legal discussions, but in a moral sense, I think it would be wrong to disassociate content (words and/or information) from the author(s) that originally produced it.

I fully support the new Wiki and think it has great potential, but at the same time I don't think it would be appropriate to copy or paraphrase articles and then lock away the originals. Sorry if I just misunderstood this part.

Can't we have both a collaborative Wiki where arbitrary people can provide input to arbitrary pages, but -- at the same time -- retain the other system, where single authors maintain ownership of an article?
Perhaps the static pages (although I have to say that e.g., my "AF adjustment hints" article has been anything but static as I kept refining it time and again) could feature a link to respective dynamic counter parts?

I think there is merit in allowing authors to retain control over the content of a page and maybe even get credit (e.g., in the form of reputation points) for the effort they put into such articles.

I'd love to see the Wiki as an addition to the existing article system rather than a replacement. Any chance of this happening? Please?

P.S.: Who is Michelle?

Last edited by Class A; 02-16-2011 at 02:18 AM.
02-16-2011, 02:18 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 104
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I guess we both need to check the details of "fair use" again, but I'm fairly certain copying an entire article over without the author's permission is not fair use. Even a rephrased version should credit the original author and cite the source. I'd like to avoid legal discussions, but in a moral sense, I think it would be wrong to disassociate content (words and/or information) from the author(s) that originally produced it.

I fully support the new Wiki and think it has great potential, but at the same time I don't think it would be appropriate to copy or paraphrase articles and then lock away the originals. Sorry if I just misunderstood this part.

Can't we have both a collaborative Wiki where arbitrary people can provide input to arbitrary pages, but -- at the same time -- retain the other system, where single authors maintain ownership of an article?
Perhaps the static pages (although I have to say that e.g., my "AF adjustment hints" article has been anything but static as I kept refining it[/url]) could feature a link to respective dynamic counter parts?

I think there is merit in allowing authors to retain control over the content of a page and maybe even get credit (e.g., in the form of reputation points) for the effort they put into such articles.

I'd love to see the Wiki as an addition to the existing article system rather than a replacement. Any chance of this happening? Please?

P.S.: Who is Michelle?
It seems like if there is an article which covers the same topic as a Wiki entry, there could be a link at the bottom of the entry under "See Also", directing readers to that article.

Ideally, the author of the original article would feel inspired to write a (new) Wiki entry on the topic, sharing their expertise, and if they choose to re-use their own words, great... but certainly I don't think others ought to be cutting-and-pasting articles without attribution. I didn't get the sense anyone was planning to do that, though.

02-16-2011, 02:29 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 104
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I agree here. We can drop the technical terms from the page title as long as the full name of the lens is mentioned somewhere within the article. Links to our lens review database and in-depth review (if available) would also be nice for each lens (under a see also h2).

So a proper page title would be:

Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4

And the "official" lens name by PF standards would be: SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4

And yes, I know that Pentax likes writing the SMC in lowercase, but then it's not an acronym anymore!
OK, I moved all of the lens entries I started so they now reside at a location as you described above. (Except, I didn't put a dash in between Pentax and "DA", since that's not how Pentax writes it on their website at this time).

Here is an example lens address:

Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited Silver - The Pentax Wiki

The article is really just a stub so it doesn't include the SMC title, and presumably someone will feel inspired to do that later while they are adding some other relevant information about the lens. (I will if I'm editing an article in the future and see it's missing). If there are going to be templates for the lens articles I figure on waiting to see what happens there before putting much time into doing some ad hoc formatting.

I would eventually like to see links to outside reviews (where available) included on the lens pages, in addition to the links to the entry in the lens database and Pentax forum reviews. Hopefully the template can accomodate that, along with a way to share all the relevant technical information about each lens in a way that is consistent from article to article. (Perhaps a sidebar?)

You might want to open a new subforum for people editing the wiki to discuss these sorts of issues. I know there are discussion areas for each page but maybe the best way to discuss general topics would be here on the forum in a dedicated area.
02-16-2011, 02:32 AM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Leipzig
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 64
The wiki extension is a very good idea in my opinion!
The only problem I see right now is that it could be confusing having both forum articles and wiki articles at the same time (but with different contents).

Another advantage of the wiki -I guess- is that it can be linked and structured more intuitively. For me being quite new to this forum it is very hard sometimes to find the right thread/article/etc on the topic I am looking for. Maybe this will be easier with a wiki engine.
02-16-2011, 03:28 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,247
QuoteOriginally posted by patrickw Quote
...but certainly I don't think others ought to be cutting-and-pasting articles without attribution.
Yes, and I'd go further than that and say they shouldn't be doing it with attribution either, unless the original author is happy with that.

Of course if one posts to a public forum one has to include the possibility that someone will cut&paste one's contribution but it is one thing to live with the imponderabilities of the internet and another if this happens from within the community one contributed to.

QuoteOriginally posted by patrickw Quote
I didn't get the sense anyone was planning to do that, though.
I understood GregK8 was suggesting this. Maybe he referred to lens/hardware gadget entries (sans reviews) only. I don't see a problem in automatically replicating these.

If anyone plans to automate the process of filling the Wiki, they should at least give the authors of original articles the ability to "opt out". I think that would be fair to those who made a contribution for a specific purpose and in a specific context.

I also wonder whether it would be good for the reputation of Pentaxforums, if the word made the rounds that user content was reused without asking said users for permission.

I hope I'm just prophesying doom and destruction without any relevance to reality, anyhow!
02-16-2011, 10:39 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,910
A Wiki for technical content that can be factually verified or dis-proven solves the issue of archiving information that contains "less than the best" in articles.

However, I see a significant difference between, say, describing how a lens is mechanically focused and relating one's personal technique for focusing which could be "edited" to suit another person's preference in a wiki format.

Consequently, I believe there is a place for both the objective wiki and for opinionated articles. I also believe there could be an agreeable protocol for transcribing the very useful, factual information contained in existing articles with the implicit consent of the original authors to help populate the wiki.

While the specific steps to open a lens for cleaning may be both correct and useful, an included description of a failed procedure owing to a lack of personal skill or a misunderstanding of the nature of the fault would not be appropriate in the wiki no matter how useful the tale of woe might be as related in an article. Cross referencing would be the key.

H2

02-16-2011, 10:59 AM   #24
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,758
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I guess we both need to check the details of "fair use" again, but I'm fairly certain copying an entire article over without the author's permission is not fair use. Even a rephrased version should credit the original author and cite the source. I'd like to avoid legal discussions, but in a moral sense, I think it would be wrong to disassociate content (words and/or information) from the author(s) that originally produced it.
I was referring to the wiki title. As far as the content goes, PF can technically copy it per the terms, but that's not necessarily moral

We can certainly keep both sections as long as they're not redundant. Once there is sufficient redundancy, we'll probably get rid of the section to avoid confusing users.


Cross-referencing is going to be strongly encouraged.


Maybe we can move all articles to the mainsite to make them more official??

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-16-2011, 11:36 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,910
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
We can certainly keep both sections as long as they're not redundant. Once there is sufficient redundancy, we'll probably get rid of the section to avoid confusing users.
If a distinction between fact and opinion/preference is rigorously maintained I don't see how there could develop a significant redundancy between the two forms. It would seem that the nature of the wiki's open format should be self-sufficient to 'weed the wiki garden' without censoring the useful, if opinionated, articles.

H2
02-16-2011, 01:04 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,247
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
A Wiki for technical content that can be factually verified or dis-proven solves the issue of archiving information that contains "less than the best" in articles.
In theory, yes.
In practice, I don't think so.
There are facts, for instance about the role of sensor size regarding low-light performance, DOF, dynamic range, etc. Their is only one truth yet I wouldn't want to be involved in fighting over the content of that particular Wiki page.

Some people will write reasonable and useful content but then others will step in and claim it is not true. If anyone is keen to have the to and fro battle such topics are no doubt to cause, they could have it right now by starting a corresponding Wikipedia article.

I think we ought to respect those authors who have something to offer but are not willing to continously fight over their content. The user base can decide how useful they find the content but authors should not a) have their content taken away from them and b) being forced to continuously correct improper attempts to "improve" their articles.

Unfortunately, "sensor size" is not the only topic which is likely to cause lots of edits and grief for knowledgeable authors. At least Wikipedia has some procedures and guidelines in place to deal with subpar content but I haven't heard of any such procedure for the new Pentax Wiki. BTW, what would the role of "moderators" be? Would they be able to lock authors out?

QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
Consequently, I believe there is a place for both the objective wiki and for opinionated articles.
I agree, with the addition that, unfortunately, it won't be easy to get a clean separation between these.
As long as we are talking about factual descriptions of hardware, I don't see an issue. However, as far as more sophisticated technical articles are concerned, I don't think ignoring authorship and allowing general opinions to dilute valuable information is a good approach.



QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Once there is sufficient redundancy, we'll probably get rid of the section to avoid confusing users.
The internet is a large place. Users have more than one way to get potentially confused. I see the point that if you want to have "articles" and don't want to distinguish between "single author" and "multiple author" articles that having a single place for PF is desirable. However, I'm arguing that there is a place for both "single author" (with attribution) and "multiple author" pages. I would contribute to both, but wouldn't want to see one system deleted in favour of the other.

QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Maybe we can move all articles to the mainsite to make them more official??
Is the new Pentax Wiki now the "mainsite"?
Can you please confirm that you are suggesting to move all existing articles to the Wiki?
02-16-2011, 01:11 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
Just one comment.

Somebody need to make a better "wiki" icon at the top left. It looks like some kid cropped the front of the shot shoe and just put "THE" and "WIKI" at the top and bottom. Come on! We can do better than this!

p.s. i am not volunteering myself.
02-16-2011, 01:13 PM   #28
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,696
This is all very cool - good idea Adam.
May take some time and dedication from some Wiki-savvy users, but looks like it's something that will take off well.
02-16-2011, 01:22 PM   #29
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,758
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is the new Pentax Wiki now the "mainsite"? Can you please confirm that you are suggesting to move all existing articles to the Wiki?
No; I was thinking of presenting articles just like we've got our reviews set up at the moment.

QuoteOriginally posted by Eagle_Friends Quote
Just one comment. Somebody need to make a better "wiki" icon at the top left. It looks like some kid cropped the front of the shot shoe and just put "THE" and "WIKI" at the top and bottom. Come on! We can do better than this! p.s. i am not volunteering myself.
To change the logo it is enough to upload "logo.png" to the wiki Anyone can change it.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-17-2011, 04:35 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
No; I was thinking of presenting articles just like we've got our reviews set up at the moment.
But why would they have to be "moved" for that and what is the "main site"?

Could you please confirm that articles won't be moved over to the Wiki before authors are explicitly given the opportunity to "opt out"? I very much appreciate that you also see a potential difference between "legally right" and "morally right" and am still hoping that the new wiki need not replace the conventional article system. If particular article authors don't mind their content to be transferred, then they could agree to the removal of their conventional articles, but I don't see the need that this has to be done for every article.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
article, articles, camera, dslr, forum, homepage, pages, photography, site, system, users, wiki
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax lens wiki? Mindflux Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-12-2008 01:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top