Photography Wiki?

[xanis]

I'm a little tired, so bear with me on this.

The idea came to me tonight to start a dedicated photography wiki site. As far as I can tell, nothing like this exists. Yes, there's photo information on Wikipedia, but a dedicated photography version of the site does not exist to my knowledge.

The only problem I forsee is getting a good mod crew to keep the site clean, mature and the information accurate, and everything generally SFW and safe for everyone.

Wikipedia is open-source IIRC and you can get the dev kit from their site.

Does this sound like a good idea to anyone, or am I just crazy?

EDIT: Poll added.

 

[OdiN]

Oh man....this would be a huge site eventually though.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Oh man....this would be a huge site eventually though.

True, but it doesn't really answer my question... do you think it's a good idea?

EDIT: Poll added

 

[Anubis]

yes good idea i voted

 

[welly]

Funny you should post this. I was just thinking about this last night and have been doing some searching to find a photography wiki. And then I discovered your post and so I signed up to the forum to talk about this. There's one or two that I have found but with very few articles and so they look like they've been started but interest was lost soon afterwards. I've tried finding a suitable domain name but in typical fashion, the domain pirates have stolen most of those that would be most suitable (photopedia/fotopedia/wikiphoto etc.).

Anyway, absolutely, definitely interested and I could probably get some other people involved. Where do I sign up? I've run a small MediaWiki site before so have basic ideas of how to set it up.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

It would be nice, yes, but it would be absolutely gigantic. Like a full time job gigantic. And lots of re-creation of information that is already on the web and in wikipedia. If the scope is all things photographic... techniques, principles, processing, optics, hardware, prominent photographers, history of photography, etc. It might be better just to make something like a portal that links to current photography articles in wikipedia.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It would be nice, yes, but it would be absolutely gigantic. Like a full time job gigantic. And lots of re-creation of information that is already on the web and in wikipedia. If the scope is all things photographic... techniques, principles, processing, optics, hardware, prominent photographers, history of photography, etc. It might be better just to make something like a portal that links to current photography articles in wikipedia.

You bring up a good point, and one that I've been thinking about. It would most likely be a logistical nightmare trying to round up a crew to create and moderate content, make sure we're not plagiarizing and giving credit where it's due. The setup itself wouldn't be too difficult. The MediaWiki platform appears to be easily manageable, it's just the content that would be the huge headache. The problem in getting a crew is that most people go to college or work full time jobs... so trying to get a solid base of people who can work with it on a regular basis would probably be difficult. However, I'm thinking that if the crew was good and everyone worked together it could be done. The idea for a portal site is good, but it seems like the easy way out. If I'm going to try and do this I want to go all out and do it right.

 

[welly]

It would be a big job but like wikipedia, surely you wouldn't expect just a handful of people to edit/add pages etc.? Wikipedia has loads of editors, and a properly organised and run photography wiki would spark the interest of photographers around the world who would be more than willing to contribute, I don't doubt for a second. You would need a good crew of people to get it started but once it's off the ground and has some promotion, then it'd become organic with different people contributing, much like wikipedia.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: welly
It would be a big job but like wikipedia, surely you wouldn't expect just a handful of people to edit/add pages etc.? Wikipedia has loads of editors, and a properly organised and run photography wiki would spark the interest of photographers around the world who would be more than willing to contribute, I don't doubt for a second. You would need a good crew of people to get it started but once it's off the ground and has some promotion, then it'd become organic with different people contributing, much like wikipedia.

That's what I'm going for. If I decide to go through with this I would love to see it take off and attract the attention of photographers from around the world.

I would really like to give this a shot, but at this point I have no idea where to start. It all seems sort of overwhelming

 

[ElFenix]

camerapedia not good enough?

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
camerapedia not good enough?

No. The general concept is close to what I want to do, but I want to create a wiki that not only encompasses camera information, but information on photographic techniques, important people, etcetera. So basically much, much more involved.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It would be nice, yes, but it would be absolutely gigantic. Like a full time job gigantic. And lots of re-creation of information that is already on the web and in wikipedia. If the scope is all things photographic... techniques, principles, processing, optics, hardware, prominent photographers, history of photography, etc. It might be better just to make something like a portal that links to current photography articles in wikipedia.

You bring up a good point, and one that I've been thinking about. It would most likely be a logistical nightmare trying to round up a crew to create and moderate content, make sure we're not plagiarizing and giving credit where it's due. The setup itself wouldn't be too difficult. The MediaWiki platform appears to be easily manageable, it's just the content that would be the huge headache. The problem in getting a crew is that most people go to college or work full time jobs... so trying to get a solid base of people who can work with it on a regular basis would probably be difficult. However, I'm thinking that if the crew was good and everyone worked together it could be done. The idea for a portal site is good, but it seems like the easy way out. If I'm going to try and do this I want to go all out and do it right.

I'm just concerned about all of the rework. If I were someone contributing to the wiki, I'd have to decide whether I want to contribute to photo wiki or wikipedia, with its already vast body of knowledge. And I'd have to decide whether to type up new information for photo wiki when it is already available at wikipedia. This isn't just a small amount of rework that we're talking about; it's a huge amount.

EDIT: Looks like there is already a photography portal on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portalhotography

 

[welly]

I think photographers can be quite a particular bunch of people and given the opportunity to write for something photography specific and be part of a community as opposed to part of the "unwashed masses" that is wikipedia, I can't help thinking they'd go for the photography community every time. If you look at the number of photography related sites, there is duplication of information - flickr, zooomr, smugmug etc. etc. - however they all exist and by the looks of things are very popular despite the number of them. I know personally I'd rather support a photography wiki than a generic wiki, if only because it would be easier to find the information in somewhere specific. Anyway, I am still interested in getting involved any how I can!

 

[xanis]

You just love to crush my dreams, don't you fuzzy?

 

[corkyg]

If wishes were fishes, we'd all take a swim. But, . . . it sure can't hurt.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Xanis
You just love to crush my dreams, don't you fuzzy?

Well, I'm just pointing out some theoretical risks, but it's important to realize that they're all theoretical. If you really want to do it I would give it a shot.