Wiki Structure

From Chelsea Wiki

Contents 1 The Main Page 2 The User List 3 Spam 4 Wiki for learning

[edit] The Main Page

• One of the main problems seems to be retaining the content about Chelsea2005 issues whilst making it inviting for current students. I am apprehensive about just moving it all within an umbrella heading of 'Chelsea2005 Stuff', but i can't think of anything better to do. It doesn't seem very relevant to current students as an 'active' archive and it ties the wiki to a perceived ownership (sorry DITTW, but it was your work and I think a lot of people found it hard to see beyond that to the potential of the thing).

Surely people have to start using it, and shaping the wiki to their needs: it seems to me we need to spend some time organising the front page -some of the specific :::2005 pages could go deeper into the site and encourage the formation of more relevant material for 2006

The front page does seem incredibly important. It seems that it would be best to get that sorted out before trying 'sell' the idea to the student body as a whole. In past reshuffles there doesn't seem to have been any visible debate about the changes, rather, a new layout magically appears. Maybe this all-at-once method would be better than trying to do it organically, bit by bit. But I'm not sure, and I'd feel strange imposing a structure I'd conceived.

i don't see anything wrong with creating a 2004-5 portal or categorising it in that way. it seems it would make for easier navigation as the wiki grows - not to ghetto off year-by-year, but to make room, navigationally. it seems important that current work holds the main page, not bygone projects. however, i'd like to see these bygones easily accessible rather than their pages be made orphans. i think it's one of the wiki's strongest points that it can allow for continuity - for discussion to be built upon, year after year. i envisage the merging of content (from familiar discussions arising each year) will become an important aspect, to make the wiki more than the sum of its parts.

I spent a year at Chelsea doing a Masters Degree, I left in 2007. I only just found out about Chelsea Wiki by accident. What does this say about collectively sharing info? How about a sign in the library man? Shame, it may have been interesting as a student.

[edit] The User List

• The same goes with user pages. If all the BAFA students were to have pages (which would be lovely!), there would be a list of 400 people, a quarter of whom are no longer here. It seems practical to seperate them up the way the course does, into 4 groups within each year. Although I think this would have many advantages, it would also destroy the rather pleasant equality which, last year, saw no distinction between Neil and a first year student. It would also preserve disciplines, which seems a bit boring and would set it up as a replacement for the dying Chelsea Sculpture project.

• Maybe we could have user pages by year, although this again puts staff in limbo.

• Or all user pages in one long list, but setting up individual pages linking to them for each year or 'seminar' group. I can't help thinking that having them in seminar groups would be beneficial; debate can still occur between groups and it will make everything more transparent. I doubt people would restrict themselves to looking at their group, and I really want to see what the first year are doing, locked away in their big room.

• The above suggestions might turn it into a stange cross of CSP and blackboard, but at least it would be one which the students could edit and the public can access!

• Any ideas about who the wiki is for? Is it just BAFA or all Chelsea courses? I'm not sure who could ever answer that, and if other courses want to use it that may be fine, but in terms of promoting the site? I'm currently thinking that anything beyond BAFA would be too cumbersome.

firstly, i thought the majority of users would initially come from the current students, tutors and other members of the Chelsea College community. The problem of 'for whom and what is the site for' must be one that is discussed, at least to sart with, within this community. Obviously this has already started to happen with this discussion itself, but i belive, correct me if i am wrong, that the wiki probably just not well known enough by the current community, or at least its potential is parked to one side in peoples minds/priorities/etc.

There was much use of the wiki last year from many people from all branches of the chelsea community and beyond. Those still in the immediate community just may not know where to 'start' again, - therefore a physical discussion invovling as many from the community as pos would be most beneficial amd stimulating! Questions of structure, organisation and purpose can all be addressed through the active use of the site - Wei-Ho

[edit] Spam

More and more we’re seeing this wiki targeted by spam bots (computer programs that scan for wiki pages to edit, often posting advertising or malicious links. WikiSysop has the authority to block malicious IPs for a certain amount of time, but it appears the programs can merely rotate IPs.

As I see it we have two options:

• Only allow editing by logged users
• Give WikiSysop access to more users, therefore increasing the number of people able to block IPs.

At present I’m the only user with WikiSysop status, and I think this is no longer appropriate, therefore would side with the second option.

Thoughts on this please?

I've added Damian as a Sysop, following brief discussion. Anyone else, just leave a msg on my talk page and I'll add you - Ian

I think both of theses things would be good

1. Alowing editing only by logged on users is a small threshhold to cross and if it keeps out the spambots..... great!

2. WikiSysop access to more users whatever that is, a few people so authorised might take the strain off you Ian.

potentially, research and MA students and a new 'off-site project initiative might all start using the wiki -

I have been evangelical

how do you feel about this ? --Neil 11:15, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)

Sounds good! It's exciting to see the Wiki active... I've been talking a little with Damian about it. I, personally, feel like it's out of my hands now, no longer being at Chelsea - but I'm more than happy to assist/discuss in its future.

I think it would be a shame if it felt out of your hands because the continuity of Chelsea -[Mohala] and the post institution experience is something that should not be missing from the wiki. We seem now to be contributing to a more general resource for artists/students ?

I always thought graduates continuing to use the wiki was one of its potentially most exciting points (although maybe less so with Ian! (in so far as it may involve duplicating mohala stuff)). As for use by MA, etc., "John Cussans' lectures: coming soon" already fills my heart with warm anticipation! It's nice that anything like that can come under general 'resources' with no need for course distinctions. I'm not sure how easily that will continue in relation to user pages, which still seem a big issue.

Logging in might make it easier for everyone to tell who's written what! or should annonymity be 'preserved'? - Wei-Ho

a bit of a cowardly option (?), but there could be an 'anonymous' account with public password. It would stop people from creating lots of different user accounts if/whenever they wished to post anonymously. Damian

I've just been talking with some of the research students - there's quite some interest from them and it would be great if they felt they could participate/contribute? Tim - 23:10, 29 Nov 2005

I'm new to this, and was at a discussion tonight with Abigail about using this site to put miscellaneous useful Exhibition information. Damian was there, though he left early. I asked about people maliciously deleting sections of the wiki, and he said it could just be recovered from the history. Seeing the Main Page covered in e-graffiti tonight, I would agree to the idea of people having to log in. I think there is a difference between posting something anonymously (if that's really felt to be important) and people being able to edit other people's content anonymously - is there any way of separating these? NeilS

I'm for people creating an account - it means that there's some 'account' ability and also means that people can get in touch with each other when someone posted something that interests them. For example, inside exhibitions it'd be good for people to know who to get in touch with to find out more about a particular show/space/work etc. This is only possible if the post-er is trackable. Anyway, it's not hard at all to log-in? Damn sight easier than logging into online banking or any of the other things I have to log into all the time ....AbigailR

It seems that the voices of the wiki community are in favour of users logging in. It's quite an annoying thing to have to do (maybe more the principle than the practise), but I think it ought to be done and it may as well be now. - Damian, 16th Jan 06

And so be it, until maybe the weekend - I'll look into an extended blacklist we can all easily maintain. but for now, if you're not logged in, you can't edit. - Ian 14:22, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

Wikis, in their most unchanged state, are completely open ie. anyone may freely edit anything on the site. Wikis rely on community action to prevent things such as e-graffiti - take for example the most well known wiki - wikipedia. Everyhing on there is freely editable but, in short, if something edited is deemed unacceptable by others who use wikipedia then it can/will be changed. Wikipedia has 100s of edits per minute so things can change very quickly! Also all data once put onto the wiki is atomatically saved and any previous version of the site can be retrieved - just click the 'history' button at the top of the page. This helps combating virus' too. All said it is really down to the community who use the wiki to shape it to how they wish - from how it should look to what its function should be. And i do find the more people there are in the user community the easier things like maintenance/getting rid of spam/e-graffiti becomes!

The ability to freely edit anything is one of the greatest things about wikis but also perhaps a difficult one to come to terms with at first. A 'login' feature may keep out a lot more people than just e-graffitists - but that decision has to be made by those who use the site...including those who graffiti - what do you want the wiki to do? - Wei-Ho

[edit] Wiki for learning

An interesting article, produced for Ravensbourne College, but equally applicable to Chelsea, and this wiki: Open Content Technologies: An Evaluation of Wikis and Blogs for Ravensbourne College