Editing protocol

[MattC]

I noticed a small error in the definition of B30 on the Biodiesel page.  Is it OK to go ahead and correct things like this when they're spotted or is there some protocol to go through first?

[Julian]

Hi Matt. good to have you onboard.

Nothing really set in stone, but for minor edits like grammar and spelling, just go ahead and change them.  For more  major stuff it's a sort of courtesy to the author of the page to post and suggest the changes you think need making.

Author's name should be at the bottom of the page, if not you can click the "History" tab.

What was the error you spotted?

[K.H]

If its one of Julians try to explain it in text speak and use lots of smillies 

[Julian]

No textish, no bloody smilies and good grammar in Matt's first post.  So hopefully he'll keep up the high standard.

[K.H]

Oooh did i type that?,i was just thinking aloud!
BTW have you prompted that discussion on the VOD?,if not get your **** in gear as that is a great idea worth investigating further,i would hate to see the credit go elsewhere ie god,he might even latch onto it no matter what he says

[Julian]

What, about bubbling in the processor?

I didn't start the thread, and I think others have bubbled to demeth before but perhaps not with quite the same volume of air.

I'd like to know more about the processor atmosphere before pursuing it further.  I'll have to get cracking with the analyser, just need some zero O2 gas to zero it, assuming it still works!

[Tony]

I'm all for encouraging everyone to just dive in as far as wiki edits go.  We can see all the changes on the "Recently Changed" page.  Worst case is one has to be reverted.  Don't think there is anything particularly contentious about any of the content, and we're not 'precious' about pages we've authored.

[K.H]

What, about bubbling in the processor?

I didn't start the thread, and I think others have bubbled to demeth before but perhaps not with quite the same volume of air.

I'd like to know more about the processor atmosphere before pursuing it further.  I'll have to get cracking with the analyser, just need some zero O2 gas to zero it, assuming it still works!

I hope Matt continues to investigate it,then one of you can try your non squirrel idea,seems a few have tried it but not taken it further

[Julian]

I'm all for encouraging everyone to just dive in as far as wiki edits go.  We can see all the changes on the "Recently Changed" page.  Worst case is one has to be reverted.  Don't think there is anything particularly contentious about any of the content, and we're not 'precious' about pages we've authored.

If it gets busy, that's rather inviting a bit of a free for all ... then someone's going to have to police the situation after the event.

Not everyone's thick skinned!  If someone has spent considerable time and effort putting a page together, to have another come along and make sweeping changes can be very disheartening and may put people off contributing in the future.

I think the way it's progressing at the moment is just right, sensible discussion, cooperation and consensus giving, so far, a fairly presentable result.

Additional contributors might be nice but I don't think a free for all is the way to go, sorry!

[K.H]

I tend to agree, i think i would like the chance to understand/defend a major edit to a page ive sweated over although as only those known to us get editing rights it should,nt happen without prior discussion too often.
Just out of interest how many different people have created pages now?

[MattC]

The bit I was referring to is, "B30 is 30% mineral Diesel, 70% Biodiesel", which I think is the wrong way around.

On Wikipedia, there's usually a group of people who oversee a collection of pages on a particular topic and monitor any changes that are made by other contributors.  They will discuss anything that they're not sure about in the page discussion and come to a consensus.  Incorrect or out-of-keeping edits can always be reversed and a reason posted in the page discussion.

I quite understand about not wanting people to mess about with your hard work, which is why I wanted to check before leaping in.  On the other hand, the great strength of something like this is that, with many more people involved, the final result should be better and more comprehensive than any one individual could produce.  The flipside is that an author has to be prepared to "let go" of their work and accept that others might think that they can improve upon it.

[Julian]

I tend to agree, i think i would like the chance to understand/defend a major edit to a page ive sweated over although as only those known to us get editing rights it should,nt happen without prior discussion too often.
Just out of interest how many different people have created pages now?

Good question.  Off the top of my head I'd say only about eight or nine have contributed, may be more.

Just had a look to see if the number is available the via wiki and found this ...

http://www.biopowered.co.uk/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers  (think I need to get out more!)

Can't find a list of contributors.

[K.H]

That just shows up people like me who take 100 edits to make a page

[Julian]

You know you can make it look like you know what you're doing, getting a page up in two or three edits by using the preview button loads of times before you save?

That's obviously not how I do it.  I mentally build the page in my head, flawlessly type it into to the text box and click save just the once!

[K.H]

Trouble is i tend to do the write ups in the evening downstairs and its right on the edge of my wifi connection,a couple of months ago id spent 3 hours struggling with a page,hit save and lost the lot!,i must admit a tiny wee tantrum ensued and i now have a line down the laptop screen!,so now i hit save after the most minor thing