Member Thoughts on Forum Structure?

[Stan]

I fully concur with our members' comments. Not an internet freak, but I have tried several motorcycle forums designed specifically for professional mechanics, dealers and aftermarket. None work as smooth as yours.

Well Done !

[Steve Blair]

I think one approach to getting the smaller wars might be to break them down based on geography. Small Wars - Africa, Pacific Basin, and so on.

As for history, I'd rather see it broken down by historical period. Right now the background stuff is jumbled in with everything else, and can make it hard for people to find stuff that might relate to their specific interests or areas.

Like you said, this is done very well from a military perspective, but from a more academic perspective it can be hard to find the more background-y stuff. A wiki-type setup would cover a glossary, and while search is good I still have a bit of a bias toward a more "hard-wired" layout (must be the archivist/library worker in me).

[marct]

I think one approach to getting the smaller wars might be to break them down based on geography. Small Wars - Africa, Pacific Basin, and so on.

As for history, I'd rather see it broken down by historical period. Right now the background stuff is jumbled in with everything else, and can make it hard for people to find stuff that might relate to their specific interests or areas.

Like you said, this is done very well from a military perspective, but from a more academic perspective it can be hard to find the more background-y stuff. A wiki-type setup would cover a glossary, and while search is good I still have a bit of a bias toward a more "hard-wired" layout (must be the archivist/library worker in me).

Maybe we could combine some of these elements. Steve, you're right that a wiki type setup would work for a glossary, but it might also work for a theatre approach as well. I suspect that we could use a wiki page for a theatre introduction, with additional pages for history, geography, etc. I don't know if it would be possible to tie actual discussion threads to specific theatre pages, but that would certainly be nice if possible.

Marc

[selil]

Maybe we could combine some of these elements. Steve, you're right that a wiki type setup would work for a glossary, but it might also work for a theatre approach as well. I suspect that we could use a wiki page for a theatre introduction, with additional pages for history, geography, etc. I don't know if it would be possible to tie actual discussion threads to specific theatre pages, but that would certainly be nice if possible.

Marc

The secondary link capacity of WIKI's would make it possible to link to forum discussion on topics. One thing you might end up doing is assigning "editors" to the discussion sections. Editorship would be a great way to think of moderators too.

I would think you would leave a single page for theater and have subsections on the same page for history, geography, past conflicts, agents within the area, influences, economy, etc... You could hot link (web link?) within the discussions to either forum discussion or secondary WIKI pages.

For example you might have Western European theater, and have discussions of Germanic nations, maybe a discussion about the Fulda Gap. A secondary page or section on the original page might detail the tactical importance of the Fulda Gap and what it represents with sections on the page about the history, geography, past conflicts, agents, etc... of the area.


ETA: One thing I would start with is a comprehensive list of small wars. Prior to that I would have a comprehensive definition of what a "small war" is, and why it is different than a "war" in general.

[marct]

Works for me, especially with editors . One of the problems Wikipedia has had was with "drive by rewrites" causing a lot of problems. Assigning editors would certainly be a help.

Marc

[SWCAdmin]

On the basis of some prior discussion, I did some research and am lining up an install of MediaWiki, the engine behind Wikipedia. I have a few things to do before we get there, not the least of which is getting the next and long overdue SWJMag out the door.

So....

For those jazzed about a Wiki (like me), keep your pants on! Getting there, soon-ish, will slap up a Beta and recon pull our way through it. Yes, there are many issues there to resolve, will do so by fire. Those who have some specific knowledge or interest, please ping me off thread at webmaster@smallwarsjournal.com.

But at the end of the day, the forums here provide a special kind of interactivity.

I've got my answer from this thread -- they work pretty well as is, don't screw with the core. Maybe we'll tinker a little on the fringe. But don't mess with a good thing (my opening words this thread).

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. I like wikis to a degree, but forums are still a better place for actual dialog as opposed to constant rewrites. I would also suggest that, for the most part, our glossary be "locked down" and not open to general edit/rewrite.

Just a random thought on a Friday afternoon.