Alright, as Uland suggested, we were starting to wander far, far off course this thread which was initially about the interaction of the Forum staff and the NANFA Board of Directors. Something that came up there was use of "sticky" topics (I prefer "pinned" as in "pinned to the top") vs. searching.

I like the idea of having some general information that are answers to common questions.

BUT, one of the great things about a forum is a new person coming on board can ask even the simplest question and gets interaction on that question from many people. That is what forums are all about. If you just post too much information on what fish fit in what tank, what fish eat this, what fish will go together in the same tank, etc... Then you might as well just expand a web site. Because that is what websites do is post information. Forums are for discussing information.

One great thing about this forum is that a new person to keeping natives might ask a question on the forum this year. Then they may gain experience keeping some natives. Then 5 months from now another new person to natives comes along and asks some of the similar questions. The person before now has the ability to help a new person.

This type of atmosphere creates an avenue where people learn and then inturn can help other people learn and feel part of a bigger picture.

Those who have kept natives for a long time really need to have patience when new people come on asking questions. Because it is interaction with these new people that will hopefully get them to like being here and want to, hopefully, support an organization where people help others and are working for the conservation of our native fishes.

I really have to disagree here. I think "search before you post" is just common courtesy on any Forum, regardless of the topic. If there's already a thread on your topic and it doesn't answer your questions, add to it. If you've searched and there just isn't a relevant thread, start a new one. You're right that we need to be friendly to everyone and not be too harsh on duplicate posts (I admit I get a bit impatient sometimes), but I also think we should try to reduce duplicate posts as much as possible. Some people (myself included) put a lot of time and energy answering questions in threads on subjects where we have knowledge to share. It's a shame to see new threads on the same topic pop up months later, which has the effect of pushing the old threads off the radar.

I think where we're heading here is figuring out how to have a "social" place where folks just gather and chat (where it's fine to re-post the same questions), and how to create a valuable reference resource (where you don't want info on the same topic fragmented all over the place).

The problem with posting on the same topic over and over again (e.g. algae control) is that the information becomes incredibly fragmented. Every time a new thread is started, it gets harder and harder to find one place to get a comprehensive view of the topic.

If folks want to use the Forum as simply a social medium (almost more like a chat room), then maybe creating a new "Just Chatting" forum is the way to go. Open it up as a place where people can talk about whatever they want (somehow fish related), and don't worry about whether things get repeated over and over. That'd especially be true if you could somehow exclude it from searches, so that it wouldn't cloud up search results looking for real info on a particular topic.

Another suggestion that has floated around a bit is the creation of a WikiPedia-like tool that would allow collaborative editing of "articles" to produce authoritative references on particular topics. For example, an article on "Algae Control" would be expected to assemble all the information that has been posted on that topic throughout the Forum, and condense it all into a single cohesive piece that would provide an excellent resource for someone researching the topic. This wouldn't be a trivial undertaking, but might be a fantastic tool for NANFA to develop in the future.

The long-rumored NANFA Enycyclopedia http://www.nanfa.org...yclopedia.shtml is supposed to have detailed accounts of all North American native fish. It's been a long, long time coming, probably because it's an incredible task for one person to assemble (certainly no disrespect to Chris intended). How cool would it be if we could *collectively* create a resource that describes not only individual fish, but also related topics like live foods, filtration, aquascaping, etc.

Wikipedia's engine is open source (http://www.mediawiki.../wiki/MediaWiki) and runs on PHP/MySQL (same as the Forum), so it's something we could technically pull off if volunteers stepped up to make it happen.

The basic point is that it's a real challenge to make the Forum be all things to all people. It's part reference library, part neighborhood coffee shop where people just chat. I certainly lean toward trying to reduce repetition and develop single authoritative threads on each topic, but that's not really what a Forum does. That's the task of a wiki.

What do others think of all this?

Dang it Jase! I just posted something about this on the old thread...but spinning it off is a good idea...here's my 2 cents.

_____________________________________________________________

Well said scenicrivers

Part of the NANFA mission statement reads:


QUOTE
to provide a forum for fellowship and camaraderie among individuals who share a common interest in the diversity, biology, captive husbandry, and conservation of North America's native fishes.


I think the forum does a good job of that. Fragmentation of information and repeated questions is just the nature of the Internet. Trying to force people to do advanced google searches or read a Wiki just isn't going to work and is in fact counter to the above part of the mission. (FWIW I'm a librarian by profession, and I've been a user/moderator/administrator of listservs and forums for many years). I always do searches before asking a question, but that's just me, I don't expect everyone to do it that way.

Just don't read the "Can I keep a Muskie in a 20 Gallon Long" threads if it really bothers you. The bandwidth is insignificant.

Maybe we should consider a special sub-forum under Questions? Bugs? Comments? to dissect how the forum is organized and managed

Are not stickys just condensed info for information... Is that not also why NANFA has a website with articles and a great journal called American currents? If you really feel that a specific set of information is worth being "stickied" why not instead publish it as an article or submission to Riffles.. or place it appropriately in the Biology and captive care section of the website proper... The forum should not be the sole depository of information the Journal and website should be.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. The forum is not a repository, the website is probably a more appropriate place for our information to be stored and accessed. It's great information is generated and shared here but forum threads are not ment to be a catalouge of topics. It sounds like you really really really want to volunteer to compile some of these repetitious threads into outlines and articles jase. They could go onto the website as fact sheets and then we could keep things relatively clean here. Two things are crucial for this, or the wiki, or anything to happen; volunteers and user participation. A wiki, a sticky, a fact sheet, none of it matters if people don't take the time to look at them or look for them and the same goes for the search tool. There will always be a percentage of people that will ask a question because they want an answer. That is just part of the tryanny of the internet. Tis better to ask and have people do the work for you than spend your time getting the answer yourself. Did I say volunteers would be needed, because volunteers would be needed to take a task, compile information, and submit it to someone volunteering their time to manage/maintain the content.

Dang it Jase! I just posted something about this on the old thread...but spinning it off is a good idea...here's my 2 cents.

Jase,

What makes you think people haven't goggled? Not everyone has the latest greatest search engine with the latest greatest firewalls. One reason I like it here is there are no ads flashing on the sides while I read. When someone is trying to sell you something, their advice can be ever so jaded. And the conflicting information! Mind boggling. Also, thus far, I haven't read anything posted by nut cases ranting on and on about murder and mayhem. There are some real weird people out there, face it.

I work in education. Believe me, I know how tiresome answering the same question you just explained thirty times over can be. But everyone is a newbie sometime, and sometimes people need to hear it phrased a certain way for it to make sense to them and they have to keep asking and asking over and over until they find the person who says it the way they need to hear it.

It's obvious you have a strong need to help, because you do. I see you helping people all the time. It is exhausting. Maybe if you pick and choose a little more, it wouldn't feel so overwhelming.

Enjoy! I think this place is great!

That's exactly what I'm thinking. The forum is not a repository, the website is probably a more appropriate place for our information to be stored and accessed. It's great information is generated and shared here but forum threads are not ment to be a cataloger of topics. It sounds like you really really really want to volunteer to compile some of these repetitious threads into outlines and articles jase. They could go onto the website as fact sheets and then we could keep things relatively clean here. Two things are crucial for this, or the wiki, or anything to happen; volunteers and user participation. A wiki, a sticky, a fact sheet, none of it matters if people don't take the time to look at them or look for them and the same goes for the search tool. There will always be a percentage of people that will ask a question because they want an answer. That is just part of the tryanny of the internet. Tis better to ask and have people do the work for you than spend your time getting the answer yourself. Did I say volunteers would be needed, because volunteers would be needed to take a task, compile information, and submit it to someone volunteering their time to manage/maintain the content.

I hear a hint of "Shut up or volunteer."
Does the job need to be big to make use of volunteers?

I commend Jase for the effort, good and clear observation, and specific suggestions.

The NANFA Forum is a group of volunteers. Participants volunteer to answer questions.
But as Jase says
"Some people (myself included) put a lot of time and energy answering questions in threads on subjects where we have knowledge to share. It's a shame to see new threads on the same topic pop up months later, which has the effect of pushing the old threads off the radar."

Wiki would be a way to capture this volunteer effort.
Responding to Brooklamprey - To summarize a topic into an article requires a larger investment of effort than making a forum post, and if you can't do the whole job, there is no use starting. Also, it becomes a mess referencing the input from the multiple people involved in multiple threads on one repeated topic on this forum.

I do not know what happens inside the black box that is the Internet and where Wiki resides. If someone can explain to me what a NANFA Wiki operator (not installer or host) needs to do, I may volunteer.

I think the site is just experiencing grow pains. I visit three sites on a regular basis. One has a membership of 30,000 worldwide. Personal posts are measured in the tens of thousands there. It is unrealistic to expect any one to leaf through more than the first ten pages (if that) to see if it's been asked before. Things get repeated.

Another has a membership of just over 300, half of whom are very likely single time visitors. Post something, you might get a quick response, or it might be six months before an answer appears. It is relatively easy to flip through two pages to see if your question is already there.

I believe webmembership here is hovering close to 1200. I predict an exponential explosion in membership. I think you gentlemen will soon have bigger fish to fry than how to deal with the algae question for the 9000th time.

But, if it really bothers you..maybe the general/basic forum should be expanded so there's an algae forum, or a tank size forum, or a .... top ten most repeated questions don't make me answer them again forum.

Word is getting out, gentlemen. The masses are coming. Will you be prepared?

I think you gentlemen will soon have bigger fish to fry than how to deal with the algae question for the 9000th time.

Ahem... gentlemen???

Wiki would be a way to capture this volunteer effort.
Responding to Brooklamprey - To summarize a topic into an article requires a larger investment of effort than making a forum post, and if you can't do the whole job, there is no use starting. Also, it becomes a mess referencing the input from the multiple people involved in multiple threads on one repeated topic on this forum.

I do not know what happens inside the black box that is the Internet and where Wiki resides. If someone can explain to me what a NANFA Wiki operator (not installer or host) needs to do, I may volunteer.

Hi Phil, Yes, I'm more and more convinced that a wiki is the way to go to provide the more permanent (and constantly updated/expanded) repository of knowledge, while the Forum is treated as an ephemeral entity mostly for discussion and community building. Writing articles for the current website or AC is great and should of course continue, but I think the level of effort required for that is beyond what most people will do. Those are also simply not good venues for collaborative authoring on a topic -- that's where wikis excel.

My recommendation to get started would be to do a proof-of-concept at Wikia . This is a free (ad-supported) hosting solution for the wikimedia software. We could start an "unofficial" NANFA wiki there, and see how well it might suit our purposes. If it goes well, we could then make a request of the BoD and Drew (who administers all of NANFA's web properties, I believe) to see about a more permanent solution.

I'll volunteer to get this started as a test, but before I'd consider making a request of the BoD and Drew to make it "official", I'd need to have several tech and non-tech folks backing me up on it. As others have noted elsewhere, it's simply not responsible to set up a new effort if it all hinges on one or two key people without a backup plan.

I don't want to get too grandiose without feedback from other stakeholders, but what I think I see potentially developing here is a really nice 3-tiered approach to sharing, compiling, and disseminating all the info that NANFA members generate:

• The NANFA Forum is an broad-reaching but somewhat ephemeral storehouse of knowledge with an extremely low bar of entry effort, but isn't ideal as a long-term reference resource for the many reasons mentioned (fragmentation of info, limited search capability, etc.)
• The proposed NANFA Wiki could be a place where frequently-addressed topics are summarized and "articles" are collaboratively generated by the NANFA community. Much more permanent than the Forum, but not the level of editorial review of the website or AC. These articles can be expanded, updated, and revised at will by the community to make them as complete and accurate as possible.
• Articles on AC and the NANFA website are the most highly-polished form of information NANFA publishes, generally authored/edited by an individual or small group expert in the subject area. They're essentially just one step below a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Thoughts from others on this? I don't want to add another element into the mix without reason, but I think a wiki could provide a valuable function in our effort to develop and disseminate quality information on native fish. Others are right -- try as you might, you can't make the Forum become an encyclopedia. Obviously, a wiki can become that.

Ahem... gentlemen???

Agreed. I hardly consider myself a "gentleman". Let's say "fish-heads" instead.

Part of the NANFA mission statement reads:
QUOTE: to provide a forum for fellowship and camaraderie among individuals who share a common interest in the diversity, biology, captive husbandry, and conservation of North America's native fishes.
I think the forum does a good job of that. Fragmentation of information and repeated questions is just the nature of the Internet. Trying to force people to do advanced google searches or read a Wiki just isn't going to work and is in fact counter to the above part of the mission. (FWIW I'm a librarian by profession, and I've been a user/moderator/administrator of listservs and forums for many years). I always do searches before asking a question, but that's just me, I don't expect everyone to do it that way.

Yes, I think I'm understanding this point. I'm wanting the Forum to be the long-term reference source that it simply isn't set up to be. Perhaps that's just the way I use it. The Forum isn't a social outlet for me; it's a way to improve my fishkeeping knowledge. The problem is that it's becoming the key way people disseminate knowledge and a social medium, and it really do both adequately. As I suggested in my other post, wikis are increasingly filling the role of a place where people can collaboratively build a well-organized source of information on given topics. Wikipedia is a key example of that -- there are many, many topics where I no longer use Google as my first stop -- I go directly to Wikipedia for a more refined summary than what a general web search would turn up. I think we need the same thing here.

Yes, I think I'm understanding this point. I'm wanting the Forum to be the long-term reference source that it simply isn't set up to be. Perhaps that's just the way I use it. The Forum isn't a social outlet for me; it's a way to improve my fishkeeping knowledge. The problem is that it's becoming the key way people disseminate knowledge and a social medium, and it really do both adequately. As I suggested in my other post, wikis are increasingly filling the role of a place where people can collaboratively build a well-organized source of information on given topics. Wikipedia is a key example of that -- there are many, many topics where I no longer use Google as my first stop -- I go directly to Wikipedia for a more refined summary than what a general web search would turn up. I think we need the same thing here.

Agreed, the more I think about it the more I like the idea of a Wiki.

Another forum I've been a long time member of tried the Wiki thing a while back but it kind of fell flat. But saying that, that particular forum (about the same size) has a much bigger social component.

I messed around with the Wiki a bit and I really liked it, I'm not a expert but I'd be happy to contribute my minimal knowledge to the Wiki.

Another idea would be to just have members contribute to an existing Wiki....this one is pretty obvious Aquarium Wiki

I always fear Wikipedia for its unreviewed nature, and the fact that any idiot can post something (and delete something, I think?). I don't know how they work, but I would think that to have the NANFA name on it, someone has to be responsible for checking things and assessing the credibility of who said what. Could be an arduous task. Might be easier to just write articles for the NANFA website, and then on the bottom give an author contact with requests that additions/improvements be sent to the author so it can be updated. That way at least someone is in charge of information considered "reference" material.

Another idea would be to just have members contribute to an existing Wiki....this one is pretty obvious Aquarium Wiki

True, but I think trying to merge NANFA people into an established community like that wouldn't work. While there's some overlap, there's a pretty big difference between the feeling here and that on other fish forums. Aside from the obvious native vs. non-native fish divide, I think folks here tend to be much more of the "do-it-yourself" mentality. There's far less focus on technology of the newest, shiniest filters, the latest engineered fish food, etc. Most NANFA folks are pretty frugal and try to subscribe to the KISS model, which I really value.

Edited by jase, 27 June 2008 - 10:35 AM.

The more I think about it, the more I think taking advantage of the current NANFA website is the best outlet for more information. It screams for articles of this type. Besides, it would be a great way to get people over there - if someone has a question, during the discussion they can be referred to that section of the website.

For example, Jase I'd love to see an article of your blackworm culture methods, as well as vermiculture.

The format for sorting topics already exists on the website, we just need to take advantage of it!

I always fear Wikipedia for its unreviewed nature, and the fact that any idiot can post something (and delete something, I think?). [...] Might be easier to just write articles for the NANFA website, and then on the bottom give an author contact with requests that additions/improvements be sent to the author so it can be updated. That way at least someone is in charge of information considered "reference" material.

Hi Laura. I hear your concern, but I can say with confidence that the wiki model can and does work -- although it requires effort from some dedicated people to ensure that info is kept accurate (in exactly the same way that a Forum requires dedicated volunteers). The advantages over simply submitting articles for posting on the website are huge. I'm 99% certain we'd see a dramatic increase in creating reference material if the process was opened to allow true collaborative editing.

Doing websites is my profession, and there's no question in the industry that the old model of having a single "webmaster" who collects and posts all material is dying. It's simply too time-intensive on that "webmaster", and invariably leads to websites going stale. The "Web 2.0" revolution is all about community participation and user-generated content, and publishing tools are emerging to fill that new role. Wikipedia and other wiki-powered sites have "moderators" just like here, who review additions/revisions to articles and have the ability to "roll-back" an article to its previous state if they feel the changes are not valuable. Of course the existing NANFA website needs to remain, as it provides information about the organization that is stamped with the BoD's approval and could never be opened to community editing. The way things are heading (even within corporate sites) is to keep core parts of sites under central control, but open up content editing in other areas to a wider community of authors.

I'd like to at least give it a try, and see how folks feel about it. I'd suggest running a trial on Wikia with the disclaimer that the resource might go away at some point, and that posters need to be aware of that. That said, any valuable info that is generated could easily be ported to articles on the existing NANFA website, so there's no real reason that anything would be lost.

I'll try to get to this this weekend, and we can see if others feel it works or not. Anyone who is interested in helping out, please respond here.

Edited by jase, 27 June 2008 - 11:02 AM.

I don't know how they work, but I would think that to have the NANFA name on it, someone has to be responsible for checking things and assessing the credibility of who said what. Could be an arduous task.

Believe it or not, it's actually potentially less arduous than moderating here. The advantage of a wiki format is that everyone can edit, not just moderators. That means that if there was a thread on an endangered darter or mussel and some idiot decided to post directions to a "collecting spot", anyone in the community can quickly edit the page to remove that information. If there are recurring problems, moderators can temporarily "lock" a topic against further editing, or block the offending user from editing it.

Honestly, I think there's probably less risk of "bad" information being posted than there is on the Forum. People have posted information on here that shouldn't be here, and moderators take care of it. If we build a responsible community around a wiki-based reference resource, there's no reason to expect the problem to be any greater there.

Edited by jase, 27 June 2008 - 11:03 AM.

Jase,

I think that you have a great idea.

I looked up the Aquarium Wiki and it was pretty interesting.