Re: Apple II Wikipedia articles

["Warren Ernst" <wernst@gmail.com>]

Paul,

Basically, the question you're asking is "Why should there ever be a
separate wiki for any topic when Wikipedia can handle being centralized
resource for everything?"

The answer, of course, is level of detail. Just like a real
encyclopedia, really.

Say you're doing a report on moon landings, and you're in the 3rd
grade. The World Book encyclopedia should have everything a 3rd grader
needs to deliver a 3rd-grade-level report on the subject. Now fast
forward a dozen years. You're in college and need to write an essay on
the moon landings. Are you going to revisit the World Book again? Nope.
You're expected to deliver a lot more detail. You're going to find a
specialized, 500 page book and start reading.

The Apple II wiki is basically the same thing as that specialized book
you go to for detailed information. The Wikipedia entries are fine for
a general summary of the Apple II platform. But would you really go
there to learn how to format a disk, learn the differences between DOS
3.3 and ProDOS, how to set the DIP switches on a Super Serial Card or
ZipGSX card, and so on? Nope.

This isn't a unique situation.

For example, there's a good summary of Ubuntu Linux at wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Linux), and then there's the
Ubuntu Wiki (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/) that goes over all the details
one would actually need to run an Ubuntu system. With this in mind, if
*you* (yes, you) learned how to do something new with Ubuntu, where
would you post it? Where would it belong? Why, it would belong at the
Ubuntu wiki, not Wikipedia.

Or to use a retrocomputing example, there's the Amiga wikipedia entry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga) and the Amiga Wiki
(http://www.amigawiki.com/). Quick, where would you go to learn how to
upgrade Workbench versions? Where *should* you go?

Today, the only reason why anyone would go to the Wikipedia site for
Apple II info is because the dedicated Apple II wiki is so young and, I
hate to say it, empty, and just getting started. All it needs is
writers and editors to fill it out, just like my previous two examples.

For these reasons, I don't like the idea of a lot of effort being put
into Apple II articles at Wikipedia instead of a dedicated Apple II
wiki. And copying stuff out of the Apple II wiki and putting it into
Wikipedia articles almost seems like a slap in the face to those
working on the Apple II wiki.

Heck, I'm surprised I feel that strongly about it, and I'm not even
invested in it. But the idea of a dedicated Apple II wiki is sound.

I would welcome being convinced otherwise.

-Warr
(former Beagle Bros employee)