Suggestions for Improving the RepRap Wiki

Hi Everyone, this thread is for discussing ways to improve the RepRap Wiki. It continues a conversation started here.

Do you use the RepRap Wiki? Why or why not? Do you have any ideas for improving it?

Here are things I sometimes see people complain about:

1. Information is hard to find
2. Information is out of date
3. There are too many links to commercial sites that add nothing of value to the wiki.

Personally, I think many of the Wiki's problems would improve if there were simply more people making meaningful edits - improving organization, removing out-dated material, merging duplicated information, and so on. Almost anyone who reads this forum is qualified to do such work. You don't need to be an expert or even own a working printer (although that certainly helps!) to contribute to the wiki.

What does everyone else think?

Quote
MattMoses
Hi Everyone, this thread is for discussing ways to improve the RepRap Wiki. It continues a conversation started here.

Do you use the RepRap Wiki? Why or why not? Do you have any ideas for improving it?

Here are things I sometimes see people complain about:

1. Information is hard to find
2. Information is out of date
3. There are too many links to commercial sites that add nothing of value to the wiki.

Personally, I think many of the Wiki's problems would improve if there were simply more people making meaningful edits - improving organization, removing out-dated material, merging duplicated information, and so on. Almost anyone who reads this forum is qualified to do such work. You don't need to be an expert or even own a working printer (although that certainly helps!) to contribute to the wiki.

What does everyone else think?

i agree structure is something that has been lacking to some degree, however this is also mostly down to the lack of use of the category feature,

the information being out of date is something that happens in every wiki

the extensive and/or ridiculous amount of commercial links is a whole chapter of discussion altogether and lately is where most of my wiki editing attention has been. I've been through the reprap buyers guide list a couple of times (and due to do it again) and removed dozens of links which were invalid or didn't work, and some of the other lists have been merged over as well mainly just so we have a hope of maintaining them to any degree and there's still quite a few of them todo,
i think we need to re-evaluate the whole commercial linking thing altogether as there are people who are abusing not only the wiki but the forum as well to sell their counterfeit stuff, and we're at a point now where the counterfeit stuff is giving the average user some serious issues,

ideally i would propose that we start concentrating more on high quality links to reputable sellers who don't support the counterfeiters with sub par components and instead only support the genuine sellers and developers with their links on the wiki , i would also like to propose that each seller should have their own wiki page that then place their links on it and any references in the wiki just goto that page, that is one way we can cut down the insane amount of dead links. however, there are a lot of people for one reason or another honestly believe that something that is opensource can't actually be counterfeit despite the evidence to the contrary...

i would also like to propose that we disallow links to "ebay searches" commonly these have been manipulated to point to certain ebay sellers are have been far from objective, that is of course when the links aren't also broken..... there is a similar issue with links to searches on other websites where product names change or items are no longer carried

I'm suprised there's no lamenting on how difficult editing the wiki would be. It's all about contents so far. Very nice!

I wouldn't dump old stuff. Just tag it to where it belongs. Only overview pages like "which software to use" should be updated to describe state of the art, not variants used 5 years ago. No need to delete pages about older developments as long as users are pointed to current stuff.

Ebay links are pointless, that's right. People capable of building a printer are also capable of googling or searching ebay on their own. But I think seller-specific pages are pointless, too. All these sellers have their shop for exactly this point, no need to duplicate this inside the RepRap wiki. And some sellers have shops inside ebay, that's where the reception of "manipulated" ebay links may come from.

I like these efforts where seller links are put onto the page of a specific design and known counterfeits are removed.

One more thing: quite some printer designs in the wiki aren't open source by even the lowest definition (downloadable source sufficient to make a copy). And even more printer desings are effectively proprietary, because they're read-only open source. Just look at all these i3 variants: [reprap.org] Some vendors put 5 or 6 variants there (i3x, i3o, i3a, i3whatever) as unique printer designs. It might help to remove them there and put them onto a "i3 variants" page. Even better would be to get all these variants into a continued development process, of course, but as long as most variants are created just for the purpose of having something different (regardless of wether it's better or not), chances are low to get there, of course.

P.S.: have you seen Glenn [reprap.org] ? Excellent efforts, big Thank You!

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

bump

Perhaps what the Wiki and RepRap needs is a collective structure and decision making process. Albeit a very loose one.

1. It seems the guidelines would be a fairly intuitive set of statements that help to clarify a decision making process (accountable). You could probably create the guidelines I refer to simply by taking quotes from the above posts in this thread (ie couterfeits, dodgy sellers, ebay links etc). A most important statement would be about what to do with the multitude of 3D printer designs. Example: Does adding an LCD to an i3 make it an i3 Pro? No. It makes it an i3 with an LCD. Does a significant amount of rework and new parts, with leadscrews and released designs and sources make it an i3 Pro - much more likely Yes. (possibly a bad example but highlights the point).

2. Printer designs could go through a filtering/checking process. Is it a small modification? is it a full rework? Is it a significant upgrade? Going through a checking process it can potentially warrant a RepRap stamp of approval, or perhaps a graded stamp of approval that is indicative of what it represents. Achieving a stamp would be a distinguishing mark and may perhaps encourage designers to design something to achieve the stamp, and potentially put off the low grade "i did hardly any work to this design but ill rebrand it and call it my own" syndrome. But then it begs the question, is it a design that achieves the stamp, or the designer/supplier?

3. Things like cheap clones and other contentious items would then naturally fall into place, or off the wiki

4. RepRap potentialy can gain some outwardly visible cohesiveness in terms of self organsiation and become perhaps a better sum of parts as a whole.

5. If it achieves a "stamp" or some other indication (by way or prescence on the wiki under said guidelines) then it can be taken as safe that it stems from and is part of the RepRap philosophy and meets the criteria that this philosophy stands by.

As with all collective groups, the democratic process of instigating such an approach is often the biggest and hardest step to achieve in the very first instance.

Possibly it would be a step too far? Possibly such an appproach would be unworkable. Maybe just continue on the good judgement and initiative of the experienced and capable admins

Quote
Mutley3D
Perhaps what the Wiki and RepRap needs is a collective structure and decision making process. Albeit a very loose one.

1. It seems the guidelines would be a fairly intuitive set of statements that help to clarify a decision making process (accountable). You could probably create the guidelines I refer to simply by taking quotes from the above posts in this thread (ie couterfeits, dodgy sellers, ebay links etc). A most important statement would be about what to do with the multitude of 3D printer designs. Example: Does adding an LCD to an i3 make it an i3 Pro? No. It makes it an i3 with an LCD. Does a significant amount of rework and new parts, with leadscrews and released designs and sources make it an i3 Pro - much more likely Yes. (possibly a bad example but highlights the point).

2. Printer designs could go through a filtering/checking process. Is it a small modification? is it a full rework? Is it a significant upgrade? Going through a checking process it can potentially warrant a RepRap stamp of approval, or perhaps a graded stamp of approval that is indicative of what it represents. Achieving a stamp would be a distinguishing mark and may perhaps encourage designers to design something to achieve the stamp, and potentially put off the low grade "i did hardly any work to this design but ill rebrand it and call it my own" syndrome. But then it begs the question, is it a design that achieves the stamp, or the designer/supplier?

3. Things like cheap clones and other contentious items would then naturally fall into place, or off the wiki

4. RepRap potentialy can gain some outwardly visible cohesiveness in terms of self organsiation and become perhaps a better sum of parts as a whole.

5. If it achieves a "stamp" or some other indication (by way or prescence on the wiki under said guidelines) then it can be taken as safe that it stems from and is part of the RepRap philosophy and meets the criteria that this philosophy stands by.

As with all collective groups, the democratic process of instigating such an approach is often the biggest and hardest step to achieve in the very first instance.

Possibly it would be a step too far? Possibly such an appproach would be unworkable. Maybe just continue on the good judgement and initiative of the experienced and capable admins

A Step not far enough more like it,

i want to draw some attention to this page as a really classic example : http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap_Options

at first glance it's a rather innocent looking page with whole heap of printers most of them claim to be under GPL licenses on this page, however looking closer a couple of them it becomes pretty clear it just another cheeky way for someone to get a bit of advertising in there eg:

the cartesio this one is Attribution - Non Comercial - ShareAlike , as far as i can see there is no sources and the external link just takes you to their webshop


i3 rework this one is GPL , however only stl files are available no actual sources

Prusa I3xl again GPL but no sources just a ink to gihub where there are stl files, the external link takes you to a webshop

some of the other printers pages are worse lacking not only sources or even stls, information in general

i'm going to put a table at the top of that page with various columns for details like license , build area, source status , things like that, as it is not apparent at first glance what the quality of the printers page will be,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
the cartesio this one is Attribution - Non Comercial - ShareAlike , as far as i can see there is no sources and the external link just takes you to their webshop

Not defending this printer nor discussing about the license issue, but I'm pointing out the sources do seem to be available, although it takes a few clicks and brings to the builder's own wiki. [mauk.cc]

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
however only stl files are available no actual sources

Agreed, this is always annoying.

Also, RepRap variations should not be on this page. I count no less than 10 Prusa i3 variants, and the original is not even listed! This is ridiculous, all those copies would not exist without the original. They should only be linked from the original i3 page IMHO.

Quote
NormandC

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
the cartesio this one is Attribution - Non Comercial - ShareAlike , as far as i can see there is no sources and the external link just takes you to their webshop

Not defending this printer nor discussing about the license issue, but I'm pointing out the sources do seem to be available, although it takes a few clicks and brings to the builder's own wiki. [mauk.cc]

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
however only stl files are available no actual sources

Agreed, this is always annoying.

Also, RepRap variations should not be on this page. I count no less than 10 Prusa i3 variants, and the original is not even listed! This is ridiculous, all those copies would not exist without the original. They should only be linked from the original i3 page IMHO.

all i can find on their wiki is the stl files, no sources that are obvious there,


i agree the prusa i3 variants should be listed off the i3 page, i'll see what i can do tonight about putting the original on there and adding a variant section into the i3 page, and shift all the i3 variants over to there,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
thejollygrimreaper

all i can find on their wiki is the stl files, no sources that are obvious there,

No sources for the STLs doesn't meet the OSHWA guidelines (which aren't a license) but those aren't required under CC. CC dictates use and not deliverables. It's a bummer but it doesn't contradict the terms of the license.

There are variants because many devs don't iterate past a rev or two. For example Prusa. Builds on single plate i3s aren't near as common as a Rework. The Rework is the standard i3 build now, at least in North America.

What/who is the Wiki for? There doesn't seem to be a consensus. You guys are focusing on things like license, source, policing vendors and looking to enforce your version of what licensing means, but is that how people really use the Wiki and the kind of information for which they are looking? I use it a ton but don't contribute because there is no structure or any defined standards. For example I've got a Smartrap build doc that is more current and I think easier to follow than the one the dev posted. But I'm not going to post over his work to do it. Posting in addition would be too confusing for many. As he is the dev, I don't think that is respectful. However I would submit a pull request but that mechanism is not available. Some may like his better, some mine and some will like another doc altogether. Who decides which is represented in the Wiki?

What I do when referencing the Wiki for others is to give them specific pages, not general terms or info. For example the beginner page, the Smartrap page, the Rework page, RAMPS page or whatever specific resource they need. Not only is there so much info there, many (perhaps most) beginners are overloaded and/or may not know what is what. I see that a bunch.

Wikipedia works in part because it's a general resource that covers a wide variety of subjects. Here it's a specific resource for a specific topic. Wide range editing isn't going to be as effective here.

A couple other random thoughts...

What is the definition when you guys use the term counterfeit? Is a clone or compatible part/assembly counterfeit? How would you define it?

Commercial links... Don't allow them. Period. I see this as an information resource, not a marketing or sourcing tool. Perhaps link to the original dev's site but as noted on other posts, pages of links are difficult to manage, easily exploited by those less scrupulous and in general don't offer any value to the resource.

Quote
vegasloki

Quote
thejollygrimreaper

all i can find on their wiki is the stl files, no sources that are obvious there,

No sources for the STLs doesn't meet the OSHWA guidelines (which aren't a license) but those aren't required under CC. CC dictates use and not deliverables. It's a bummer but it doesn't contradict the terms of the license.

There are variants because many devs don't iterate past a rev or two. For example Prusa. Builds on single plate i3s aren't near as common as a Rework. The Rework is the standard i3 build now, at least in North America.

What/who is the Wiki for? There doesn't seem to be a consensus. You guys are focusing on things like license, source, policing vendors and looking to enforce your version of what licensing means, but is that how people really use the Wiki and the kind of information for which they are looking? I use it a ton but don't contribute because there is no structure or any defined standards. For example I've got a Smartrap build doc that is more current and I think easier to follow than the one the dev posted. But I'm not going to post over his work to do it. Posting in addition would be too confusing for many. As he is the dev, I don't think that is respectful. However I would submit a pull request but that mechanism is not available. Some may like his better, some mine and some will like another doc altogether. Who decides which is represented in the Wiki?

What I do when referencing the Wiki for others is to give them specific pages, not general terms or info. For example the beginner page, the Smartrap page, the Rework page, RAMPS page or whatever specific resource they need. Not only is there so much info there, many (perhaps most) beginners are overloaded and/or may not know what is what. I see that a bunch.

Wikipedia works in part because it's a general resource that covers a wide variety of subjects. Here it's a specific resource for a specific topic. Wide range editing isn't going to be as effective here.

A couple other random thoughts...

What is the definition when you guys use the term counterfeit? Is a clone or compatible part/assembly counterfeit? How would you define it?

Commercial links... Don't allow them. Period. I see this as an information resource, not a marketing or sourcing tool. Perhaps link to the original dev's site but as noted on other posts, pages of links are difficult to manage, easily exploited by those less scrupulous and in general don't offer any value to the resource.

ideally what we want is a wiki with high quality content and a lot less marketing and marketing inspired information, i'm personally not too fussed on the stl thing if people want to do that kind of thing... whatever i'm not going to loose sleep over it,

developers who put their work up on the wiki i think generally expect people to contribute to some degree so don't worry about offending someone, there is also the talk pages which are supposed to be for discussion of the direction of the page .

when we use the term counterfeit it's really a technicality directed at the marketing approach used by certain sellers, the commonly accepted definition is "To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud" or something along those lines, which is typically what the clone shops do, the main reason i started using the term counterfeit was because it fitted the description of what they were doing a bit better than clone

using the jhead and e3d clone shops as an example, you'll see they call what they are selling a jhead or e3d and usually reference the jhead pages on the wiki as a source for more information, in reality what they sell are variants but sold as the real thing as if it conforms to the source they are referencing which most of them don't not even closely

calling them "clones" implies a certain amount of complicity with the source and the real thing as the developer envisioned, however "counterfeit" implies something more accurate relating to the situation

we're not trying to stop them from selling their variants of the jhead and e3d's just how they sell it, most of the counterfeit sellers have been removed from the buyers guide until they change how they sell their variants to a more honest way, eg giving the variants their own name and making them build their own reputation not riding on someone elses,

at the end of the day while we are not obligated to host any commercial links we should draw a line between information resource and link Lister,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
vegasloki
For example I've got a Smartrap build doc that is more current and I think easier to follow than the one the dev posted. But I'm not going to post over his work to do it. Posting in addition would be too confusing for many. As he is the dev, I don't think that is respectful.

As soon as you see the wiki as a collaboration effort you'd find it more than respectful to improve what a vendor developer already uploaded. This also makes pull-requesting obsolete, because it's not the developer's page, but RepRap's page. In case you messed up some way it's possible to revert uploads anyways.

There were developers which tried to lock pages for them selfs. These locks were removed.

Quote
vegasloki
What is the definition when you guys use the term counterfeit?

A counterfeit is a piece of hardware which claims to be an exact copy of a design, but isn't. There are very obvious cases, e.g. hotends claiming to be a J-Head, but made of aluminium, looking more like an E3D.

Quote
vegasloki
Commercial links... Don't allow them. Period. I see this as an information resource, not a marketing or sourcing tool.

There's much concensus on this one and if you watch the wiki changes page, you'll see that pretty much all commercial links are written by the respective commercial vendor. Many many accounts which exist solely for adding these links and at times, they made up some 80% of total edits.

However, the line between commercial and non-commercial is very blurred. If a developer uploads his design and also sells copies of this design in his shop, is this already commercial? If yes, the wiki would be almost empty.

As such I think the property "commercial" isn't well suited for a distinction between evil and welcome. "Downloadable sources sufficient to make a copy" is a property which seems so allow a much better distinction.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I've only been around Reprap for a few months, and I've found the content in the Wiki often very useful, but finding the content in the wiki is very hit and miss. Mostly miss actually.

I have a personal dislike of Wikis. I like the idea you can author information and structure it, I hate the cack handed way they deal with images. You can paste a picture into an email message in gmail now, and until that works in wikis you'll continue to see images become more out of date as no one wants to update them.

It's a fallacy that Wikis are great because they mirror the web and allow information to be linked to like a living document. The only way the web works is through google (or bing if duckduckgo if I must be impartial). This is why corporate wikis fail so often. They're not indexed by a real search engine, so you just can't find stuff in them.

If you want some practical advice on making the reprap wiki better. Start at the front page and make it much much more obvious what is going on. The "build a reprap page" does not take you to a guide on building a reprap. It talks about a lot of things, many of which are poorly described or totally irrelevant at that juncture, while all the useful information is hidden or missing.

Concrete example. The most popular reprap design at the moment is probably... Let's pick i3 as I've got one and the forums are alive since I joined with people asking i3 related questions. So go to the wiki page and a) find the section on what is currently a good recommended printer (i3, mendel 90, perhaps a kossel if you feel deltaish). There isn't one. My guess is people think they are somehow favouring a printer and invalidating the RepRap ethos. Either that or they think the information will become out of date quickly as new printers are developed and isn't suitable for the wiki. Both are totally wrong.

b) try and find the i3 on the build a reprap page. There are half a dozen of them with no clear indication of what's what. Why do we have a show case for printers in the build a printer page?? Egalitarian bs described above perhaps?

Why is that page so damn long?? It's got the show case, followed by reams about software, then a glossary. Why would anyone be interested in the software the printer THEY HAVEN'T EVEN GOT THE PARTS FOR YET would run??? I mean it's essential information, but look at is from the perspective of the person who might actually be reading the page.

And the glossary. Well, it's another glossary, and NONE of the entries link to the relevant wiki page, assuming there is one, where further information might be forth coming.

That's one page!!

IMHO, everyone who wants to 3D print goes through similar steps. (Unless they skip steps by purchasing something that's already made.)

So, I think the wiki should be organized to be all about those steps. Here's my list:

- Discovering the different 3d printers, types of extruders, types of hot ends, current electronics, filament, heated beds. What are their strengths and limitations? How large/fast can they print reliably?
- How to build one (in general, and by type), drill down to individual guides - Building the Framework, Connecting the Electronics.
- Firmware setup (by printer type) with sample configuration.h for each without ridiculous speeds and accelerations. (Perhaps a beginning and advanced configuration.h)
- "Front End" setup (Repetier Host/Pronterface etc)
- Initial Testing and manual control (proper movement and extrusion - everything operates the right direction)
- Basic calibration: (movement (motor current, distance, speed, acceleration, delta curvature), extrusion amount, temperature) with test objects
- Advanced tuning with test suite, for bridging, overhangs, infill, speed/acceleration/quality etc., and the firmware and slicer settings that affect them
- Troubleshooting guide. Now that's something that needs special attention since this is mostly what's done in the forums over and over. So it should be broken down by category, like Extruder & Hot End problems, Bed adhesion, ... People should be referred to individual pages there.

On a side note:
We should be thinking about how to move our technology forward. Are you nostalgic for floppy drives? Not me. Well, the difference in price of an 8-bit and 32-bit chip is minimal, and the benefits are huge. The state of the art is not beading edge any more at all, so why not help people go that way? It would have helped me a lot to start with 32-bit for my delta rather than going through all those problems, and still needing to upgrade now. Now don't yell at me - I think 8-bit is Legacy and should be recommended with caution, and not for deltas. And no I'm not a vendor.

---

My printer: Raptosaur - Large Format Delta - [www.paulwanamaker.wordpress.com]
Can you answer questions about Calibration, Printing issues, Mechanics? Write it up and improve the Wiki!

I agree with Paul Wanamaker. Only reason I'm writing here instead of heading off to the wiki to start editing is that it just... Making the wiki really good seems overwhelmingly time consuming. I guess I have to feel more like I'm in a work group to dare starting to invest time in it.

I've had problems using the wiki sometimes because it's slow or not responding at all. I suggest we spit in some dollars to pay for better hardware it can run on. Someone more familiar with how the server is operated might have better suggestions for where such money could be put to have the greatest effect?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2014 04:55PM by tobben.

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

Quote
tobben
I suggest we spit in some dollars to pay for better hardware it can run on.

Money isn't the problem here, we have it. Actually, we also had a new server about a year ago, but for some reason the person working on it gave up. It's a matter of somebody doing the work.

Instead we got a number of software improvements into place (thanks, @bill2or3), so currently there's no apparent pressure to try again. PHP needs a restart every month or so, this happens, and response time is similar to that of Wikpedia most of the time.

Yes, it's a huge task ahead. I'm positive, non-commercial edits raised a lot over the last few months.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
Money isn't the problem here, we have it.

Great! =D

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

For the sake of the greater good, I persuaded my wife to try to use the Wiki. It produced confusion and eventually useful input about user experience

The short version
The overall visual impression of the Wiki is a bit cluttered. It's many text fragments (usually links) outside the actual wiki-text and they're placement is sometimes inconsistent.

A slightly longer version
The front page starts with the header "Reprap" and then the text: "There are security restrictions on this page". After that follows a list of languages and some navigation-links. When pressing one of these navigation links, they disappear. The pages that show up use various templates and styles for further navigation, but none of them perseve the "About", "Development", "Community", "RepRap Machines" and "Resources" - links.

In general, I think it would be good if we avoided structures in the wiki-pages that could be perceived as "Template inside the template". It creates confusion about what is template-stuff and what is content-stuff on the pages. Therefore, I suggest some stronger norms on the wiki:

• A table of contents directly below the main header, left-aligned. Applies to all pages.
• References and further links (how to build this machine etc.) at the bottom.
• No special boxes at the top (links aligned horizontally, special welcome messages etc).

I think even the front page should confirm to these norms. The third point means we need a new solution for linking to other languages. I offer you, the Community, a full weekend of my work if we can agree on something like this.

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

I also suggest that we invent family names for groups of printers based on the shape of their frame.

This is would be easy for beginners to understand, and could be used to structure typical beginner-pages like "RepRap Options" and "RepRapMachines". If other materials than thermoplastic filament becomes a logical choice for beginners, the "Print material" catergory should of course be presented first, before frame shape based family names. Printer categories based on coordinate system, which axis move, and name of common ancestor is of course relevant for more advanced RepRappers and should be used to structure more advanced pages.

Suggestion for frame shape based family names:

• Cuboid (Darwin etc.)
• Prism (Mendel etc.)
• Pi shaped (Prusa i3 etc.)
• Tower (Rostock etc.)
• E shaped (Eventorbot, Morgan)
• Pillar (Ormerod, R-360)
• Twin pillar (Printrbot)
• Crown (Simpson)
• Pyramid (PolyBot)
• ...

These categories are hard to make exhaustive and mutually exclusive and there will always be designs falling between them. I suggest this type of categories because I have found them the most effective when helping beginners start talking about/sorting designs.

Anyway its just a first sketch. Tell me if you like the thinking.

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

The issue in accessing the information isn't what the frame type of the machines are being called. Adding an additional layer of names will compound the issue.

The issue is in the structure of the information and the consistency of that information. There is plenty of good information there, one just needs to weed through it and determine what it is they need. That's the difficult part for someone not familiar is that they don't have enough knowledge or experience building printers to know what is what.

Quote
tobben
After that follows a list of languages and some navigation-links. When pressing one of these navigation links, they disappear.

You mean these linked pages don't share the same headers? I agree, these pages should do so.

I just removed the page protection, so this warning no longer appears.

You're entirely welcome to edit yourself, @tobben. There's also a main page sandbox for changes which aren't entirely obvious.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
I just removed the page protection, so this warning no longer appears.

... IIRC the page-protection was set by Adrian after some vendors start to fill the starting/entry pages with their links

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Quote
VDX
... IIRC the page-protection was set by Adrian after some vendors start to fill the starting/entry pages with their links

I've also set a watch, so these guys won't escape me. Clicking "undo" is a matter of just a second :-)

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
You mean these linked pages don't share the same headers? I agree, these pages should do so.

Yes, it looks much better now, nice work!

What do you think about having some stronger norms for the top/bottom part of all wiki pages? Is enforcement of such norms wanted?

The most effective would be if we imposed a restrictive template through the wiki software, but I'll be happy to start working if we just establish socially agreed upon "best practices"/norms. I think the topmost part of all wiki pages is the most important places to start weeding.

Quote
Vegasloki
The issue is in the structure of the information and the consistency of that information.

I agree. I put the new frame categories in the "maybe later"-drawer. I would like to know your opinion on my norms-post above.

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

Quote
tobben
I'll be happy to start working if we just establish socially agreed upon "best practices"/norms.

Best practice is: norms are set by the people implementing them.

Forget about some sort of "social agreement" in advance. Typically tedious discussions, zero results. Just go ahead and set your marks. Others will follow magically.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
Forget about some sort of "social agreement" in advance. Typically tedious discussions, zero results. Just go ahead and set your marks. Others will follow magically.

I have experienced the kind of magic you are talking about fail dramatically too many times. Do you have experience of the contrary?

I personally are not comfortable with investing work before I've got a feeling for what users will appreciate. Would you follow the "Table of Contents at the top"-norm if I imposed it, @Traumflug? I would like to contribute something that you and the rest of the Community actually wants...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2014 02:42PM by tobben.

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

Quote
tobben
I have experienced the kind of magic you are talking about fail dramatically too many times. Do you have experience of the contrary?

Failing which way? Some people with zero contributions lamenting about those doing actual work? Let them lament, they have edit permission just as you and the fact they make no use of it also means they're not too serious about their ideas.

There are cases where contributing people have differing opinions, of course. In such cases a compromise has to be found. They're rare, though, and it's certainly possible to find these compromises.

Quote
tobben
Would you follow the "Table of Contents at the top"-norm if I imposed it, @Traumflug? I would like to contribute something that you and the rest of the Community actually wants...

For general page layout I usually follow that of wikipedia. Table of contents of the page is automatically inserted right after the introduction and I see no reason to change that.

For table of contents across several pages, headers at the top are just fine. Implemented at many pages already, for example [reprap.org] , [reprap.org] and [www.reprap.org]

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
Failing which way?

People that don't care about organization and don't feel any responsibility for keeping things tidy will always show up when there is universal access. (I'm not against free editing access, but things like floods of commercial links happen.) If the ones tidying up give up, or if they don't agree on what is "tidy", then the magic fails. This has happened to various labs and student organizations that I have been a member/creator/destroyer of.

Quote
Traumflug
For table of contents across several pages, headers at the top are just fine.

Ok. I consider it untidy.

Nice work on btw! (looking at changes log for 14 dec) I have more to say about the front page, but I just found out about the discussions tab, and suppose it belongs there.

Cheers!

---

torbjornludvigsen.com

Quote
tobben
People that don't care about organization and don't feel any responsibility for keeping things tidy will always show up when there is universal access.

Good thing is, they show up, but don't edit, so there's not much conflict.

Quote
tobben

Quote
Traumflug
For table of contents across several pages, headers at the top are just fine.

Ok. I consider it untidy.

If you find a better way, go ahead!

Two wishes from my side:

- Keep older stuff accessible. Not prominent, but if one wants to see a Gen3 electronics, she should find it. For example, I just created a page with some formerly unused photos about early Darwin Opto Endstops - really old. Adding them the the Darwin category makes this accessible: [reprap.org] There are people out there which still use such stuff or want to see how things developed over time.

- Do things in chunks you can manage. Small work completed is much much better than a huge task started and left incomplete for lack of time or loss of interest.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
tobben

Quote
Traumflug
Failing which way?

People that don't care about organization and don't feel any responsibility for keeping things tidy will always show up when there is universal access. (I'm not against free editing access, but things like floods of commercial links happen.) If the ones tidying up give up, or if they don't agree on what is "tidy", then the magic fails. This has happened to various labs and student organizations that I have been a member/creator/destroyer of.

Quote
Traumflug
For table of contents across several pages, headers at the top are just fine.

Ok. I consider it untidy.

Nice work on btw! (looking at changes log for 14 dec) I have more to say about the front page, but I just found out about the discussions tab, and suppose it belongs there.

Cheers!

the commercial/external link thing is a huge problem in a wiki and there is two types of them, the ones which are plain spam and the ones people put in that link to a specific product/page. the regular people actually flooding it have more or less stopped / been banned

the spam ones i think we've managed to get some kind of grip on and buyers guide lists are being merged together into more manageable chunks which get checked and reviewed every so often/when needed, some pages have been locked and additions to lists are done through the talk pages,

the other type is where someone lists a source of a component they used or someone running a web-shop goes through the wiki linking their entire catalog with explicit links everywhere, what happens down the track when a change is made on the webshop that breaks the link or the webshop goes under is that all those links are broken and the webshop owner never actually comes back to remove links or update them (not that any actually keep a record of pages they've edited) some of these links are still being removed years later, the worst and most abused is the links to Ebay "searches"

a hidden problem is people putting prices in wiki pages, if it's historical data like a build log then it's not so much of a problem, however some pages have specified prices as part of a BOM , the problem being is that prices vary a lot due to other factors, particularly when people put down shipping costs

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

It seems like we need to have a written policy about commercial links and commercial activity. I do not think we can fix the problem if we are all trying to enforce our own personally defined rules. Here is a first-draft-imaginary-just-for-discussion-purposes attempt at a unified policy:

• External links to these places are always allowed anywhere: GitHub, Youtube, Youmagine, Thingiverse, Reddit, Imgur, personal blogs, Hackaday, (and lots of other places that are hard to list all of)
• Pricing information on the wiki is always prohibited.
• External links to companies selling a product (or your ebay page) are always prohibited, except for the following cases
  [1] if you sell a product you developed, you may have a link to your company on your product's wiki page
  [2] every vendor can have a link to their company (or ebay page) in their Wiki User Page, Wiki Talk Page, and Forum signature
  [3] approved links are allowed on RepRap Buyers Guide
  [4] approved links are allowed on Filament Suppliers
  [5] approved links are allowed on Hot End Comparison

What do the rest of you think?