Here is a stick in the sand as to what we want to the wiki to contain: A resource for aggregating and describing online structured and semistructured content - especially that which is freely available for research/prototype purposes. Specifically, this wiki will contain information about two types of computer readable data - that which is continuously updated (e.g. rss feeds, traffic data, etc.), and that which is static (e.g. geographic databases). In addition, the wiki will be a repository for information about apis and other applications which may be used with this type of data (e.g. google maps).
Please feel free to mod as appropriate - this is just to ge the ball rolling as to what we want in this resource. MattH On 6/1/05, Duncan Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Wikicities might be good, but there are some things that I don't like > about it, such as the adverts at the side and adverts for wikicities all > over the place. I also feel that there should be slightly more control > over a wiki than there would be there (eg, the ability to edit the > database if it goes completely out of hand, and also to back up the > database). > > I am fairly sure there have been several people in the past who have > said they would be willing to put a wiki up for it (or in Jim's case, an > offer for funding/programming for it) and I would also be willing to, so > if Ben can't get anything nice sorted out, I feel we should go for a > wiki hosted by a user of this mailing list. It may also help the > backstage.bbc.co.uk admin to persuade other people in the BBC that > people here are serious about it. > > With regard to invading a wiki that already exists, there are problems, > such as finding another wiki and also the possibility that it wouldn't > have the same aim as a dedicated wiki would. > > > Duncan > > > Matthew Hurst wrote: > > >Jim, > > > >You make excellent points. I agree about the accountability issues and > >that the freedom of having it outside the bbc + the general interests/non > >backstage interests that come into play. So yes, I now think my original > >suggestion was wrong - let's go for something external. > > > >However, I think that the backstage area could link to whatever it is that > >we come up with - a single link to a central resource. (All this assuming > >that the backstage people don't come back with an answer that allows the > >beeb to host it in some legally sandboxed manner). > > > >Does anyone know about wikicities? That could be a candidate location - > >have a look. The more I look at it, the more I think this might be the > >place to go... > > > >http://www.wikicities.org > > > >Matt > > > >On 6/1/05, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>I think this is a big issue though. The BBC is well known for having > >>strict controls on content, linking to other sites etc, even so far as > >>message board posts having to be verified. The idea of a wiki is great > >>but before the backstage crew implements we should know the rules > >>first. What we dont want it an official one and user based one which > >>forks off because of the limitations on the official one. > >> > >>Personally, I feel what the BBC is doing is excellent however I am > >>hestitant to see a resource catalogue become a BBC thing exclusively > >>when at the moment most of the prototypes are using multiple sources for > >>data and technology. IF the BBC host it will have to, in some way, be > >>accountable for the links and I dont think they will be able to link to > >>content they know breaks there own terms and conditions. Any resource > >>must be free of any issues about linking and content otherwise it is > >>already broken before is begins. > >> > >>The questions for me are: > >> > >> 1) Is there an exisiting developers area (wiki, web whatever) which > >>this kind of thing can be tacked onto - would it be better to contribute > >>to an exsiting community rather than to start from nothing? > >> > >> 2) Is this type of developing, specifically XML resources and > >>resource binding something which deserves a wider, non BBC tag? I would > >>be willing to donate some dosh and programming time to setup a host etc > >>which a group of us could run. > >> > >>I hope this isnt taken in a negative stance! > >> > >>Jim. > >> > >> > >> > >>Ben Metcalfe wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Such vandalism, as you can appreciate, is our biggest > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>concern on this > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>front. But will keep you all informed. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>I'm not sure vandalism should be *too* much of a concern - > >>>>wikis are becoming the norm in developer communities. For > >>>>example, see the Java.net community wiki at: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Sorry, I should confirm: "our" as in 'the BBC'. I personally don't have > >>>any problem with hooking up a wiki - I'd love to get a bit of mediawiki > >>>action on the backstage server! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>My two cents is that the benefits of wikis in community building > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>outweight the disadvantages. > >>> > >>>Totally agree -- which is why I'm doing everything I can to get this > >>>agreed. > >>> > >>> > >>>Ben Metcalfe :: backstage.bbc.co.uk > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
