week4paug.net

The Home Office: week4paug.net Happenings => Wikipaug.net => Topic started by: jedifunk on September 02, 2005, 04:39:36 PM

Title: wiki modifications
Post by: jedifunk on September 02, 2005, 04:39:36 PM
ok, so anyone had any time to read through the users guide & faq?  i'm trying to figure out the answer to a few questions.

1. can we lock down pages (setlists) and/or have only parts of it editable.  i just keep thinking we're gonna put in a ton of work on this, and then some assholes gonna come along and fuck it all up.  perhaps there is a way to limit peoples editing abilities.

2. any thoughts on what type of "skin" we want?  there are tons out on the web that we can choose from.
3. i'm working on a few logo ideas and will post them so we can take a vote.
4. there's a ton of other things, but i'm forgetting right now. :oops:
Title: Re: wiki modifications
Post by: jephrey on September 02, 2005, 05:29:01 PM
Yeah, an asshole could easily screw it up, and that sucks.  I am not sure how to do that either.

I like the current skin unless we can make our own.  I check the other defaults and the current one I like best.

I am also working on a logo.  We'll put it to a vote if we get a couple.  Maybe we could ask others too.

Jephrey
Title: Re: wiki modifications
Post by: guyforget on September 03, 2005, 12:49:58 AM
Pages are kept separate in a database, its easy to restore to previous versions in the event of a vandal.  There is possibly a way to set it up so that only registered users can edit pages, but as of now there is a problem with the site sending mail to new registrants.  It appears as if there is no mail function of the wiki itself, but that it just uses the php mail function which apparantly doesnt work because the week4paug.net server isnt used as a mailserver; I run our email and email for guyforget.net and a handfull of others from another server here at home.  So thats really the first thing I need to set up, and honestly its something that I need to get done before we commit to using this wiki software.  I havent been able to put much time into researcing the various softwares available; but given my time constraints of late Im rather reserved to finding the easiest way to set this up. 

There are basically two ways to get mail working. 

So far; I havent found the file with that information, and I have searched all that I could imagine relevant.  The other options are to use different software with more configurability or to put the site on a server that is configured as a mailserver who's php mail function works. 

Title: Re: wiki modifications
Post by: jedifunk on September 03, 2005, 12:56:51 AM
yeah, as i've just been looking over things i almost feel like perhaps wiki isnt the best way to do this.  i certain like the idea of a user contributed site, but at this point in time it seems a bit daunting...
Title: Re: wiki modifications
Post by: guyforget on September 03, 2005, 01:09:59 AM
I love wikis.  But theyre not always as easy as it seems like they should be.  But the communal idea behind a wiki is something that I find exciting. 

Vandalism shouldnt be a problem though, vandals dont really go after wikis because they all have built in capability to simply revert to an archived version.  We certainly shouldnt let vandalism determine how we approach this site. 

Unfortunately; as always of late, my time is rather limited.  And one of my bosses just bowed out so I will be working more than ever; but I also will be getting a raise and a promotion so its not a bad thing at all.  I am excited about the new responsibilities and the possiblity of further advancement.  But it means that my time to devote to technical aspects of this project is limited; BUT, we shouldnt accept compromise either.  What would be other ways to create a site that you envision [its your vision, not mine here] without having to write it ourselves? 

Im out; work in 10 hours.   :-P
Title: Re: wiki modifications
Post by: rowjimmy on September 06, 2005, 12:21:49 PM
Ok.
here's my ideal phish informational website (same theories apply to Grateful Dead except for different setlist sources and the additional ability to link to archive.org for dls)

The site would contain setlists. Refined and static. the mockingbird foundation is, imo the standing authority on setlists through 2000 and the PH setlists are available on phish.com (making those quite difinitive, don't you think?)

The setlists would be viewable primarily in a single page per year scrollable paragraph format much like you see at www.mockingbirdfoundation.org/setlists/1995.html
including the basic notes for a show
EXCEPT -
Click on the date you get a single page for the show with possibly expanded notes, show reviews, song-specific performance reviews (ie: antelope) and any other miscellaneous links that may relate such as press reports, ticket stub scans, attendance notes.. whatever.
additionally, here you'll find the links to db.etree and bt.etree and/or livephish.

Also, on either page (the yearly or individual show page) clicking on a song title takes you to its stats and info page. this would include the obvious stats (first/last time played, gaps, etc)  as well as things like 'notably long versions' or 'keywords' or whatever.  also any info on the background of the song, essays on it's possible meanings and links to best versions (the dates would take you to the individual show page.)

The stats of course, have been largely mastered by David 'zzyzx' Steinberg and i cannot fathom anyone wanting to rewrite his database.

The place i see for user input is in the reviews.
allow readers to rate shows, review shows and songs, write their tour stories and their ideas on how lifebouy is about nearly drowning in your bathtub while strung out on vicoden after getting a root canal or some wack stuff like that.

Can this or any wiki allow this? i don't know.

honestly. i think the smartest thing to do is develop this concept to it's fullest theoretical form and 'sell' it to the mockingbird foundation. not as in a transaction but as in convince them that it is the next logical step for their content. They may already have come to that conclusion and be working on it, i don't know. Seems logical, really.