Ah, old faithful DokuWiki. I've used that one loads of times over the years. I even used a DokuWiki for my film website ages ago (http://fictionality.co.uk (http://fictionality.co.uk)). It's actually one of the best for small scale stuff, but possibly not when there are a larger number of users. But yeah, something integrated into the forum would probably be better.
We probably will have a handful of contributors. Certainly not a wikipedia-like volume. So perhaps DocuWiki can still be an option. Rather than waiting for an integrated option we can get going with this thing.
I assume our current User Name and Password will get us in?
http://www.futureguitarnow.com/dokuwiki/doku.php (http://www.futureguitarnow.com/dokuwiki/doku.php)
Is there a "how to use this wiki" doc? ( with formating syntax)?
QuoteI assume our current User Name and Password will get us in?
I guess not
Sorry. This is not connected to the SMF user database at all. Syntax help is here
http://www.dokuwiki.org/syntax (http://www.dokuwiki.org/syntax)
Thanks!
Everyone - just sign up with your existing FGN user name, and the Wiki will email you a temporary password.
Change the password to what you like in the User Profile area.
We could shape it up to resemble something like this
http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index.php?title=Main_Page (http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index.php?title=Main_Page)
Seems like I neglected the wiki for many months. As soon as I logged in I was presented with a bunch of security warnings. Will be applying some patches now. Also looking at providing a simple link to the wiki at the top of FGN forum page.
That's me registered. It might be easier to turn off editing for people that are not registered. That way it's easier to track who does what.
Yup. Good idea. Only registered folks should be allowed to edit. By the way, while looking for an integrated wiki + smf solution I came across a great site from Italy.
http://www.rockciclopedia.com/index.php (http://www.rockciclopedia.com/index.php)
Exactly what I have in mind for FGN. A nice simple portal for news etc, then wiki, forum etc all nicely hang off from it. All nicely integrated.
Oh well. One day.
Sympodious, you're it. I made you an admin of the dokuwiki along with Elantric. Can you please take a look if you have the time? I uploaded the latest update too so I hope it is now safe.
Meanwhile the admin of the forum I linked about responded to my query and said he uses MediaWiki and there is a working SMF bridge. I will look into that. MediaWiki is the mother of them all isn't it?
Yup, MediaWiki is the Daddy. That's the one that was written for the Wikimedia Foundation (that make Wikipedia and the like). The syntax for the mark-up is different between DokuWiki and MediaWiki so we might want to put off doing too much if there is going to be a switch?
Quote from: Sympodius on March 09, 2010, 12:52:55 AM
Yup, MediaWiki is the Daddy. That's the one that was written for the Wikimedia Foundation (that make Wikipedia and the like). The syntax for the mark-up is different between DokuWiki and MediaWiki so we might want to put off doing too much if there is going to be a switch?
Good point. We need to make a decision rapidly. MediaWiki looks more polished & capable. Which one would you choose for the purpose at hand?
I think I'd push quite strongly for MediaWiki. Its capabilities are pretty much the strongest around. It's a little more complicated to set up than DokuWiki, but I can help you with any problems. I've set up MediaWiki many times before. It does require MySQL from what I remember, but I assume that's not a problem? The reason I tended to use DokuWiki was that it was the best wiki that didn't require a database. But MediaWiki is probably the best one overall.
I agree. I was leaning towards MW as well. Not sure why I started off with DokuWiki. The fact that MW uses db rather than the filesystem is better for security & backups etc. Will kill DocuWiki. Here's our new wiki based on MediaWiki. Apologies for those of you who created accounts and poked around a little on DocuWiki. Promise this one is it.
http://www.futureguitarnow.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Awesome, I created an account. Looks like you had no problems setting it up :)
Yup. All thanks to the SimpleScripts thingy provided by our hosting company... Makes it a no brainer but I can run a manual install too if I need to. Not lets see how to get this thing configured.
I still haven't had an email confirming my account yet. I think I need that to verify my email.
It is the same for me Sympodious.
Account made but as yet no verification email. Maybe more patience required by us.
I think its a setup issue. Hang on please.
Possibly, though it might be worth checking that the email settings in MediaWiki match the server's configuration. No rush, MCK :-)
Someone Design one
I'm too busy - (big crunch here at work.)
I'll make one today and put it on the wiki until a better one is submitted :)
That sounds great! Thanks for taking that on.
Ok. Started a branch for the DF/DT User Manual Project.
Yes. Anything you create you can delete or overwrite. What you contribute can be anything from simple text to nicely formatted material. You just hit edit and type away. The easy editor has buttons for simple formatting elements like Bold, underline etc so you don't have to know anything about MediaWiki syntax.
Well, not quite. If you create a new page, it is a little hard for a regular user to delete it, but if you create a section on an existing page, that is easy to delete. However, the wiki will store all changes that have ever been made to page, so it won't be deleted permenantly (everything can be restored to an earlier version). If you want to check how something looks, there is a preview option on the edit pages which will show you the output without changing anything. The wiki also has a scratchpad area called the sandbox (http://www.futureguitarnow.com/wiki/index.php?title=Sandbox) which you can use to learn the syntax without fear of 'breaking' a page.
The formatting language used by our software is intended to be easier to use than SGML/XML/HTML based languages. However, it does have less flexibility. This makes sense for a wiki, of course, as it maintains a uniform look and is better for security. That being said, some HTML tags will still work if you choose to use them, but this is discouraged. You can browse the full syntax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup) at Wikipedia's website.
Hear hear!!! Written like a true Admin! Everyone, meet our new Admin. Sympodious is behind all the guts and glory of our new Wiki. Its shaping up to be great thanks to his efforts. Time now to start chipping in. Please don't be shy!!!
Thanks for the intro, MCK :)
I have everything already completed -
But its in Wordperfect 5.0 format. ;)
Quote from: Elantric on March 13, 2010, 10:49:54 AM
I have everything already completed -
But its in Wordperfect 5.0 format. ;)
You're in good shape. I'm still struggling with the update form WANG... :P
Well, to be honest, I think WikiML is something different. But I could be wrong. I'm pretty certain that what we're using couldn't be called a form of SGML. It has a very non-XML look to it. I've made a quick reference of the wiki syntax (http://www.futureguitarnow.com/wiki/index.php?title=Help:Editing) so that people can have a look. A discussion on how to make tables using wiki syntax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table) can be found on Wikipedia's help pages.
I am indeed at the final stage of my PhD. However, my understanding of the general philosophy of 'wiki' is to just publish everything all the time. Even if grammar, layout or formatting is incorrect. This means that other people can come in and correct stuff without needing an explicit editorial process. If bad pages are created that need to be removed later, then that can also be achieved, but it's not something I'd worry about.
Incidentally, I write most of my stuff in LaTeX :)
My question is when to use the wiki vs. when to use the forum. Is it a:
Questions & exploration - use the forum?
Answers & facts - use the wiki?
When we've resolve an issue here in the forum, should we post the corresponding result in the wiki?
How do the two intertwine?
I think you've answered your question. Forum is where we breed knowledge. Wiki is where we hang it to grow and deliver value.
Quote from: MCK on March 14, 2010, 12:00:03 AM
Forum is where we breed knowledge. Wiki is where we hang it to grow and deliver value.
+1 :)
Great job! The table looks wonderful! Thanks for your efforts.
I'd like to think that Gibson should be cool with us taking the existing manuals apart and re-stitching them in a manner that makes more sense for the community. It just might save them the effort of re-doing the Dark Fire Manual too. So I think this is a win win outcome for all at the end of the day. I'd say we should be ok to copy/paste and then reformat / para-phrase somewhat and make the material unique.
Then again, do note I'm not a lawyer and don't wish to learn any more about the legalities at hand here. This is a grassroots efforts by the people for the people... If Gibson has a problem with our content then we'll just adapt accordingly. Just my $0.02.
Thanks once again for your willingness to contribute.
Thanks for doing that, PLexxiTronic. It is greatly appreciated. I feel that after a good start, I will probably not be working on the wiki over the next week or so. A few looming deadlines have come up and some family stuff as well. But hopefully I'll help out more soon.
In terms of the copyright, I think Gibson will probably be okay as long as we're not making any money from it. There are no adverts on the wiki and we don't charge for access, so I don't think it should really be an issue. Having said that, we should try and make things as much our own as possible. Overall, the wiki should benefit us and Gibson, so I'd be surprised if any issue was made of it. Despite our various grumblings ( :) ), Gibson have actually been pretty nice to us so far. They've pretty much just left us to get on with it and haven't made much issue of us storing local copies of their downloads. And Tronical (who I presume are the people who actually write the manuals) have been pretty wonderful to us. Essentially, the wiki is doing much the same thing as storing local copies for download so, again, as long as we're not exploiting their work for profit, I'm sure it'll be okay.
I guess it would be prudent to ask Tronical if they have any thoughts on this?
Tronical writes them, Anderton rewrites them, ( although several FGN forum members here "ghost rewrote" the the official Dark Fire 4.0 Manual - including me.
I find andertons manuals introduce operations out of sequence, and Major key concepts are left buried in the middle of a long paragraph
I would use this file as a source when possible,
https://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=227 (https://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=227)
and avoid blanket copy paste directly from Gibson Manuals
We can rewrite our own.
We should all agree on the MCK use - Since we have an International Audience, lets use words that translate well into Spanish, German, Italian, French, Russian, Japanese, Chinese - I know its a tall order.
For instance lifting the MCK - its a battle of Egos on what do we call it? "Pull Out", "Lift UP", "Pull Up", "Lift Out, ""Switch On", - All get used for the same function depending on the author.
Then there is what to call working with the MCK - as there are different modes that engage depending on the duration when it is slightly pressed "in". "Enter", Tap", "Push MCK Down", Push MCK In" - these all get used for the identical intended function - with frustrating results if you push the MCK too far.
Lets all determine a "common MCK syntax" that everyone likes and stick to it for the Wiki.
This is great! Thanks for putting thought into this. Most appreciated.
I think its looking great! My only suggestion would be to perhaps change the table of contents (second URL) to a bulleted list style rather than having the 1 to 27 incremental numbering in there. It makes it a little confusing for me. Not sure how strongly you feel about this presentation. Thanks once again for your effort.
Ok. I understand. Thanks for trying.
The Composite Table of Functions is looking great! Great resource.
You're doing a great job! Little bit at a time is a lot better than nothing ... [ Hint hint everybody ... ] Thanks for all your contributions!