|
|
|
|
markanite
Dec 3, 2005, 11:54 PM
Post #1 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
As suggested document has been modified into a Wiki.
http://www.spadout.com/rock_climbing/wiki/
Also, after putting some thought into it the manual has been modified to include definitions and minimal instruction. (i.e. it says what belaying is, what tools to use, advantages etc. BUT it does NOT say to belay).
Let me know what you guys think and keep up the constructive criticism.
Note: Currently I have to create users for people who request to edit. This is not a free for all editing Wiki.
-------------------------------
This document refers to a climbing manual which is in development.
For starters, the fact that this project is being critiqued is an excellent one. I realize that this project is much more 'risky' than our prior project, the rack simulator (racksimulator.com).
My new question is if this project is feasible.
Problems writing about climbing include:
- 'Safety' is a relative term
- Rock climbers use different techniques and disagree about almost every subject in climbing.
- Many 'correct' techniques used by climbers involve an 'acceptable' amount of risk.
- An 'acceptable amount of risk' varies from not climbing to free soloing above your ability.
- Even a 'safe' climber can die.
- Every climbing scenario is unique. Climbers must use their experience to determine how to react.
How do you develop a manual on a subject that will never be correct (through everyone's eyes)? RC dot com is extremely critical (a positive thing) but if I wrote 'Freedom of the Hills' and published the document online for free the document would be critiqued and 'removal' requested.
There are hundreds of manuals online. There is no organization of the data and there is (by far) more incorrect data than correct data.
I am not stating that mistakes in a climbing manual are acceptable but they will occur (and must be fixed). If you only wish to release a 'perfect' document, it will never be published. I have placed a 'work in progress' message on the document (but left it up for review of those who are helping me edit the document). I have fixed most suggestions that have been sent to me.
I am not stating that the following document is the solution. My question is if a solution is possible and how it could be created?
|
|
|
|
|
scottquig
Dec 4, 2005, 12:33 AM
Post #2 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 298
|
I think that allowing anyone to blindly edit the manual is a horrible idea. If you look at the variety of advice given on this site (I'm sure you have, based on the number of your posts), you'll see people arguing over the most trivial things...and then there are many times when people give plainly stupid advice. Maybe you should have something like what http://urban dictionary does: anyone can edit the information, but people can vote on the quality of the content that a person has contributed...then the side moderator can decide what to keep and what to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
markanite
Dec 4, 2005, 12:40 AM
Post #3 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
Thanks for the tips. The information is reviewed for accuracy and relevance. We defiantly have not added everything we have received. I.E. somebody submitted the definition:
Ground Fall - *splat*
This was not added.
- Mark
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Dec 4, 2005, 12:47 AM
Post #4 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
isn't this what tradgirl.com had for a while? not sure if it's still up or not...
|
|
|
|
|
maimed
Dec 4, 2005, 3:09 AM
Post #6 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 104
|
I'm not a developer, but why didn't (or why don't) you make this project a WIKI?
www.wikipedia.com
www.alacrawiki.com
edited to give the proper url for the business information wiki we run
for examples of truly open-source databases...
-Matt
|
|
|
|
|
cal_gundert05
Dec 4, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #7 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Posts: 410
|
I thought it was great. I especially liked the gear comparisons and all those pretty pictures.
Good job!
|
|
|
|
|
dotc
Dec 4, 2005, 5:34 PM
Post #8 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 50
|
I didn't see a section on ethic and style? Crag etiquette, leave no trace etc..
Best of luck,
DOTC
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Dec 4, 2005, 6:05 PM
Post #9 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: I'm not a developer, but why didn't (or why don't) you make this project a WIKI? www.wikipedia.com www.alacramodel.com for examples of truly open-source databases... -Matt
I second the suggestion to use a WIKI. Incorrect information would largely be regulated by others in the community...
Problems might occur when two people begin to bicker over minutiae (see rock & ice bad advice thread for example)
|
|
|
|
|
maimed
Dec 5, 2005, 2:41 AM
Post #10 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 104
|
We agonized over letting people edit the alacrawiki, but ended up regulating edits by requiring a login and password to make any changes. We also have somebody checking the updates to make sure they're kosher.
Food for thought. I'd love to see this project get some legs.
-Matt
|
|
|
|
|
oldrnotboldr
Dec 5, 2005, 6:01 PM
Post #11 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 306
|
Very nice job so far. I see you have put a lot of hard work into it.
I would second the idea of an ethics section in addition to weather, basic first aid, and maybe a bit on nutrition- meals, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Dec 5, 2005, 7:43 PM
Post #12 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
wiki-fy it, man. It will be much better in the long run, and will take on its own existence and will not need your personal effort to keep it going.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Dec 5, 2005, 7:51 PM
Post #13 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: isn't this what tradgirl.com had for a while? not sure if it's still up or not...
Tradgirl is still around, although not frequently updated. The climbing FAQ can be found at:
http://www.tradgirl.com/climbing_faq/index.htm
|
|
|
|
|
moondog
Dec 5, 2005, 9:35 PM
Post #14 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 196
|
ok, I'll just be blunt for lack of time. I cruised around the gear section (natch) for a few minutes and found errors in *every* entry perused. From benign misspellings to dangerous advice. I sincerely hope the authors will pull the site from the web until it can be cleaned up.
I'm generally not a fan of the Wiki approach for informing people how to engage in risky activities, but if you're gonna do it, do it right. Whoever has oversight on spadout.com has not yet demonstrated he/she possesses sufficient knowledge/time/patience/determination/whatever to ensure correct information is offered.
Caveat Lector.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 5, 2005, 9:42 PM
Post #15 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: ok, I'll just be blunt for lack of time. I cruised around the gear section (natch) for a few minutes and found errors in *every* entry perused. From benign misspellings to dangerous advice. I sincerely hope the authors will pull the site from the web until it can be cleaned up.
yeah, I noticed the same thing, which is why I will not participate in the project. It really looks like a half-assed job that has little chance to succeed. Everything from misspellings, like "bite" instead of "bight," which should be caught by a competent editor, to blatantly dangerous comments, such as advice to pull back on the lever of the grigri when the climber needs slack. Junk.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Dec 5, 2005, 9:55 PM
Post #16 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: In reply to: ok, I'll just be blunt for lack of time. I cruised around the gear section (natch) for a few minutes and found errors in *every* entry perused. From benign misspellings to dangerous advice. I sincerely hope the authors will pull the site from the web until it can be cleaned up. yeah, I noticed the same thing, which is why I will not participate in the project. It really looks like a half-assed job that has little chance to succeed. Everything from misspellings, like "bite" instead of "bight," which should be caught by a competent editor, to blatantly dangerous comments, such as advice to pull back on the lever of the grigri when the climber needs slack. Junk. Jay
Thirded. I quickly skimmed the multipitch climbing section, discovering typos, misguided generalities, and also just pointless statements. There was something along the lines of, "At least in multipitch climbing, you won't hit the ground after the first pitch." If it's going to be useful, someone needs to work as an editor to clean it up and give it some cohesion.
|
|
|
|
|
pmyche
Dec 5, 2005, 11:48 PM
Post #17 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 1160
|
Isn't a lynchpin of instructional climbing literature to have it generate from an authority/authorities who can back up the content with field experience?
I understand some texts are a collective overseen by a principle "author" or editor, but an open-source, how-to climbing manual seems inherently flawed.
With that, will the submissions be anonymous or attributed?
|
|
|
|
|
markanite
Dec 6, 2005, 12:18 AM
Post #18 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
This document refers to a climbing manual which is in development.
For starters, the fact that this project is being critiqued is an excellent one. I realize that this project is much more 'risky' than our prior project, the rack simulator (racksimulator.com).
My new question is if this project is feasible.
Problems writing about climbing include:
- 'Safety' is a relative term
- Rock climbers use different techniques and disagree about almost every subject in climbing.
- Many 'correct' techniques used by climbers involve an 'acceptable' amount of risk.
- An 'acceptable amount of risk' varies from not climbing to free soloing above your ability.
- Even a 'safe' climber can die.
- Every climbing scenario is unique. Climbers must use their experience to determine how to react.
How do you develop a manual on a subject that will never be correct (through everyone's eyes)? RC dot com is extremely critical (a positive thing) but if I wrote 'Freedom of the Hills' and published the document online for free the document would be critiqued and 'removal' requested.
There are hundreds of manuals online. There is no organization of the data and there is (by far) more incorrect data than correct data.
I am not stating that mistakes in a climbing manual are acceptable but they will occur (and must be fixed). If you only wish to release a 'perfect' document, it will never be published. I have placed a 'work in progress' message on the document (but left it up for review of those who are helping me edit the document). I have fixed most suggestions that have been sent to me.
I am not stating that my document is the solution. My question is if a solution is possible and how it could be created?
|
|
|
|
|
markanite
Dec 6, 2005, 12:31 AM
Post #19 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
pmy... sorry missed your post prior to replying.
Regarding giving credit / anonymous postings: This up to the submitter. Some submitters want credit, others are too concerned about a law suite.
|
|
|
|
|
pmyche
Dec 6, 2005, 1:01 AM
Post #20 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 1160
|
Thanks for reminding me that I skimmed your initial post, markanite...
"how it could be created"
I think that informational need could/should be solicited thoroughly before soliciting content. Maybe this was done. Seems like determining viability in advance would keep the content somewhat reeled in. I think the general membership here would make a more valuable contribution by providing questions rather than answers.
I just don't see the content working well as open-source here. But, J. Long seems to be doing just that. His advantage, it seems, is he already has specific texts which he's updating (as well as his own deep experience and knowledge) as opposed to creating an all-encompassing how-to from the ground-up. I may be wrong on that, too.
When I pick up a climbing instructional manual, the first thing I want to know is "says who?" If it's authored--even edited--by a true authority, I give it good marks in advance. If it's a compilation of rc.c input with some organization by other rc.c'ers, I have what I think is reason to be skeptical about the content. Respectfully, this place seems more about sharing newfound psyche than it is a gathering place of the well-versed. (Not to discount the voices of authority here, which number many.)
FWIW. I commend your ambition. I didn't peruse the document.
|
|
|
|
|
markanite
Jan 3, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #21 of 21
(10101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
As suggested document has been modified into a Wiki.
http://www.spadout.com/rock_climbing/wiki/
Also, after putting some thought into it the manual has been modified to include definitions and minimal instruction. (i.e. it says what belaying is, what tools to use, advantages etc. BUT it does NOT say to belay).
Let me know what you guys think and keep up the constructive criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
