Scope WIKI: scopedia.net
Re: Scope WIKI: scopedia.net
Yep it's been happening on a regular basis for a while, sorry. I have just been reverting the edits but it's getting hammered so it's a pain to find them in the edit list. I'll post something further this weekend. Have to run out now!
Re: Scope WIKI: scopedia.net
Hey Valis,
Maybe a captcha before editing or signing up can bring stress-relief there?
Also did a couple of clean sweeps, but last time I noticed them robots are actually editing existing pages, too, flushing out links to whole groups of pages... painfull =\
OTOH, there isn't much contributions to http://www.scopedia.net , apart from 2-3 regulars... If only others would add little sensible bits from time to time, that would have the wiki grow and provide inspiration and encouragement to the current editors. The wiki needs a bunch of information to be representative, but without any user contributions that's just not gonna happen. );
Is there a need for such a wiki? I think so, since most everything about Scope has been said here on z - apart from the artistic or production-technical. The Scope system has been documented inside out here, but spread over 10 years of forum and even from the old articles section, "The Pulsar Pages," the latency measuring howto comes to mind... A wiki seems ideal for such tasks, much more efficient than the search engine here.
How does a n00b get started on Scope? Best case scenario he post his questions, goals, desires somewhere on this forum. And we reply to the same but different questions time on time again. A wiki would be perfect for people who just want to hop through answers, but it also requires contributions from those who know. And that user base has become practically dead quiet, mainly because Scope's furthest corners have been explored and mapped.
Let's hope the releases from S|C, like Xite, bring extra features to the development side with the new SDK that re-ignite creative fresh-sounding device releases, and the user-base with it. But that won't be for the PCI cards we have now. Xite has largely simplified hardware options - ever tried to explain to friends about the different cards, daughterboards, outboard AD/DA..? The focus is totally shifting from the installation/technical to the project, the artistic - which is great news. But productions techniques are more generic, and apart from modular and the routing (for which there is no musically worthy alternative) often not Scope-bound. If I may try to predict, user contributions will continue to decline and splinter, the only thing I see that can change the decline is Xite's hardware architecture and a new SDK with hardware-dependent exciting new possibilities and optimizations. If that doesn't happen, the user-base won't become so vibrant again as, let's say 5-10 years ago, and that's essential for a comprehensible user-contributed Scope documentation.
Although the ScopeRise newsletter is rolling, and has diverse and interesting articles, I have my doubts on weither it can grow far beyond the current user-base as long as it isn't linked officially from S|C's site - like S|C officially announced Xited.org forums earlier this month. Maybe do a year test-run then try to have it up there at S|C's? In the meanwhile, much respect to dante for putting the whole ScopeRise together so nicely!
I'm just pulling in the newsletter in this topic to come to the point of the wiki - to have a means for anyone, user or aspirant, to get excited about possibilities, tricks and techniques for Scope and get comprehensible documentation on this deep niche-subject.
Wow this post has grown beyond proportions, all that just to suggest a captcha :D
Greetings,
at0m.
Maybe a captcha before editing or signing up can bring stress-relief there?
Also did a couple of clean sweeps, but last time I noticed them robots are actually editing existing pages, too, flushing out links to whole groups of pages... painfull =\
OTOH, there isn't much contributions to http://www.scopedia.net , apart from 2-3 regulars... If only others would add little sensible bits from time to time, that would have the wiki grow and provide inspiration and encouragement to the current editors. The wiki needs a bunch of information to be representative, but without any user contributions that's just not gonna happen. );
Is there a need for such a wiki? I think so, since most everything about Scope has been said here on z - apart from the artistic or production-technical. The Scope system has been documented inside out here, but spread over 10 years of forum and even from the old articles section, "The Pulsar Pages," the latency measuring howto comes to mind... A wiki seems ideal for such tasks, much more efficient than the search engine here.
How does a n00b get started on Scope? Best case scenario he post his questions, goals, desires somewhere on this forum. And we reply to the same but different questions time on time again. A wiki would be perfect for people who just want to hop through answers, but it also requires contributions from those who know. And that user base has become practically dead quiet, mainly because Scope's furthest corners have been explored and mapped.
Let's hope the releases from S|C, like Xite, bring extra features to the development side with the new SDK that re-ignite creative fresh-sounding device releases, and the user-base with it. But that won't be for the PCI cards we have now. Xite has largely simplified hardware options - ever tried to explain to friends about the different cards, daughterboards, outboard AD/DA..? The focus is totally shifting from the installation/technical to the project, the artistic - which is great news. But productions techniques are more generic, and apart from modular and the routing (for which there is no musically worthy alternative) often not Scope-bound. If I may try to predict, user contributions will continue to decline and splinter, the only thing I see that can change the decline is Xite's hardware architecture and a new SDK with hardware-dependent exciting new possibilities and optimizations. If that doesn't happen, the user-base won't become so vibrant again as, let's say 5-10 years ago, and that's essential for a comprehensible user-contributed Scope documentation.
Although the ScopeRise newsletter is rolling, and has diverse and interesting articles, I have my doubts on weither it can grow far beyond the current user-base as long as it isn't linked officially from S|C's site - like S|C officially announced Xited.org forums earlier this month. Maybe do a year test-run then try to have it up there at S|C's? In the meanwhile, much respect to dante for putting the whole ScopeRise together so nicely!
I'm just pulling in the newsletter in this topic to come to the point of the wiki - to have a means for anyone, user or aspirant, to get excited about possibilities, tricks and techniques for Scope and get comprehensible documentation on this deep niche-subject.
Wow this post has grown beyond proportions, all that just to suggest a captcha :D
Greetings,
at0m.
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
Re: Scope WIKI: scopedia.net
Thanks for the Kudos, and I agree - ScopeRise won't sustain and still maintain quality/diversity without user input. Both the mag and the wiki need this to grow.at0m wrote:Hey Valis,
Although the ScopeRise newsletter is rolling, and has diverse and interesting articles, I have my doubts on weither it can grow far beyond the current user-base as long as it isn't linked officially from S|C's site - like S|C officially announced Xited.org forums earlier this month. Maybe do a year test-run then try to have it up there at S|C's? In the meanwhile, much respect to dante for putting the whole ScopeRise together so nicely!
Greetings,
at0m.
Re: Scope WIKI: scopedia.net
I've actually need to get around to adding my own contribution to Scoperise...but in the meantime I'm trying to address outdated promises I've made such as to scopedia.net.
To wit, perhaps it would be simpler to just replace the mediawiki install entirely with something more suitable to maintenance from a small number of people? Getting ACL's working on mediawiki wasn't an issue, but it seems that when I spend a weekend patching it enough to at least preserve the small amount of work done, I go away for a few weeks and the (widely popular and easily targeted) software has again had its underpinnings exposed. The upshot is that since it's entirely disk based it's not ever going to really affect the overall server, but the constant spam edits are definitely getting old. I put a few days last week into locking down JB's forum since I had updated it a week or so before (and it was seeing fresh spammers) so I can probably take on scopedia.net in the near future.
In the meantime perhaps someone can dig out the most recent 'real' version of documents and export them to a more portable format? Word, google docs, simply pasted into a text file or whatever. I can offer up an ftp or create a new google wave...etc. The idea being to recover the work that's been put in a bit. Or if that's not even worth it (as I haven't had time this month myself) then maybe a fresh start is needed? A CMS will work fine with a small number of editors and it's rather easy to add users as needed to allow people to contribute without having to retrain everyone to adopt Mediawiki's particular brand of methods.
To wit, perhaps it would be simpler to just replace the mediawiki install entirely with something more suitable to maintenance from a small number of people? Getting ACL's working on mediawiki wasn't an issue, but it seems that when I spend a weekend patching it enough to at least preserve the small amount of work done, I go away for a few weeks and the (widely popular and easily targeted) software has again had its underpinnings exposed. The upshot is that since it's entirely disk based it's not ever going to really affect the overall server, but the constant spam edits are definitely getting old. I put a few days last week into locking down JB's forum since I had updated it a week or so before (and it was seeing fresh spammers) so I can probably take on scopedia.net in the near future.
In the meantime perhaps someone can dig out the most recent 'real' version of documents and export them to a more portable format? Word, google docs, simply pasted into a text file or whatever. I can offer up an ftp or create a new google wave...etc. The idea being to recover the work that's been put in a bit. Or if that's not even worth it (as I haven't had time this month myself) then maybe a fresh start is needed? A CMS will work fine with a small number of editors and it's rather easy to add users as needed to allow people to contribute without having to retrain everyone to adopt Mediawiki's particular brand of methods.