next »

[althea]

People are updating the old wiki even though the page in question has already been copied to the new wiki. In consequence, the new wiki is already out of date for my field. Unless the data in the old wiki is removed, and replaced with links to the corresponding pages in the new wiki, this will continue to happen. Otherwise, we'll be left with two wikis to check - and we were already checking the one far too often as it was.

Maybe this is a choice people have made that they should be allowed to make. I don't understand the extreme pressure that is being exerted to switch to scratchpad.

If people are willing to replace whatever is deleted by the saboteur on the old wiki, and want to continue to use the old wiki, what's the problem?

[nailman]

People are updating the old wiki even though the page in question has already been copied to the new wiki. In consequence, the new wiki is already out of date for my field. Unless the data in the old wiki is removed, and replaced with links to the corresponding pages in the new wiki, this will continue to happen. Otherwise, we'll be left with two wikis to check - and we were already checking the one far too often as it was.

I don't think there's any reason to "impose" a solution here. Presumably the most popular one will win out in the end. You could just make the new wiki a link to the old one.

[heronhouse]

I just wanted to thank nailman for creating the new wiki.  It seems like there's mostly been negative feedback on the forums.  However, I interpreted it as a sincere attempt to help us all out during a very critical time in the job search.  My field has cleaned up and updated the scratchpad wiki, and it seems to be working great.

And I for one don't understand how "the people" can really vote on something like this, particularly if the page in which the "vote" would be held keeps getting deleted.  Typically, in these kinds of technologies, it takes some time for the "people's" choice to be clear.  For those of us interviewing for MLA jobs, we don't really have that kind of time; we'd risk a proliferation of wikis during these critical two weeks until "the choice" becomes clear.

[althea]

People are updating the old wiki even though the page in question has already been copied to the new wiki. In consequence, the new wiki is already out of date for my field.

Is this not a form of voting?

[zhimbo]

The old wiki is useless to me.  My discipline made its own wiki weeks ago, predating the new wiki.  I certainly don't understand why people would feel any attachment whatsoever to the old one.

[althea]

The old wiki is useless to me.  My discipline made its own wiki weeks ago, predating the new wiki.  I certainly don't understand why people would feel any attachment whatsoever to the old one.

Because, for me at least, the new one has displaced sections that cut across the information and I can't read it.

[althea]

The old wiki is useless to me.  My discipline made its own wiki weeks ago, predating the new wiki.  I certainly don't understand why people would feel any attachment whatsoever to the old one.

Psychology has it own wiki that works very well. It doesn't have the clutter that the scratchpad does.

[t_r_b]

The old wiki is useless to me.  My discipline made its own wiki weeks ago, predating the new wiki.  I certainly don't understand why people would feel any attachment whatsoever to the old one.

Al Pacino giving his killer stare: "Old wiki, you are dead to me."

I seriously doubt anyone "feels" much attachment to anything. But presumably lots of people have the old one bookmarked, and many of them may not be aware that there is a new wiki (on my field's page in the old wiki, there is no indication of the new wiki's existence). Hence when they get interviews, they put the information on the old wiki.

The idea that the "people's choice" will determine which wiki lives misses the point. If there are two wikis, different people will "choose" (knowingly or unknowingly) to post their info on one or the other. This will mean that neither contains all the information being posted. The core purpose of the wiki is to create a central place for job market updates - if there are two competing places, neither will fulfill that purpose.

I also applaud nailman for taking the initiative to move the wiki to a more sophisticated site. But unless you remove the info from the old wiki pages and replace it with links to the new wiki pages, people will just keep updating the old one - not necessarily because they like it better, but because they have no way of knowing of the new one's existence. And those of us who want to read those updates will have to keep going back to the old wiki, whether or not we think the new site is a better option.

[althea]

[I seriously doubt anyone "feels" much attachment to anything. But presumably lots of people have the old one bookmarked, and many of them may not be aware that there is a new wiki (on my field's page in the old wiki, there is no indication of the new wiki's existence). Hence when they get interviews, they put the information on the old wiki.

The idea that the "people's choice" will determine which wiki lives misses the point. If there are two wikis, different people will "choose" (knowingly or unknowingly) to post their info on one or the other. This will mean that neither contains all the information being posted. The core purpose of the wiki is to create a central place for job market updates - if there are two competing places, neither will fulfill that purpose.

I also applaud nailman for taking the initiative to move the wiki to a more sophisticated site. But unless you remove the info from the old wiki pages and replace it with links to the new wiki pages, people will just keep updating the old one - not necessarily because they like it better, but because they have no way of knowing of the new one's existence. And those of us who want to read those updates will have to keep going back to the old wiki, whether or not we think the new site is a better option.
[/quote]

You are making assumptions and deciding what is best for other people.

[t_r_b]

You are making assumptions and deciding what is best for other people.

Huh?

I'm sorry, I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Could you please explain what assumptions you think I am making, and what you think I've decided is best for other people?

I just want to be able to go to a single bookmarked web page that all the wiki-addicted folks in my field know is the place to post news of interviews, offers, etc. All I'm saying is that for this purpose, two parallel wikis are collectively much less useful than one. Keep the old one, move to a new one - I really don't care. But having both makes no sense.

[althea]

But unless you remove the info from the old wiki pages and replace it with links to the new wiki pages, people will just keep updating the old one - not necessarily because they like it better, but because they have no way of knowing of the new one's existence. And those of us who want to read those updates will have to keep going back to the old wiki, whether or not we think the new site is a better option.
[/quote]

You are assuming that people are using the old wiki not because they like it better, but because they don't know about the new one. You don't know this. You know about the new one.

You want to remove the old wiki and force people to use the new one. You are deciding what is best for them.

[merce]

can someone provide a link to the new WIKI?
MLA non-English in particular.

[t_r_b]

But unless you remove the info from the old wiki pages and replace it with links to the new wiki pages, people will just keep updating the old one - not necessarily because they like it better, but because they have no way of knowing of the new one's existence. And those of us who want to read those updates will have to keep going back to the old wiki, whether or not we think the new site is a better option.

"not necessarily" = could be one thing, could be the other. In other words, not assuming either one to be the case.

"whether or not" = ditto.

You are assuming that people are using the old wiki not because they like it better, but because they don't know about the new one. You don't know this. You know about the new one.

I couldn't care less why people use the old wiki: I was only pointing out that some continue to use it, while others use the new one, which adds up to a mess. The fact that there is no indication on the old wiki (at least on the page for my field) that the new wiki even exists makes me think it's quite likely that a good number of folks don't even know there is a new one. If they did know, I suspect most of them wouldn't care: like me, most folks just want to get news about interview invites.

You want to remove the old wiki and force people to use the new one. You are deciding what is best for them.

I don't care which wiki people use. I only wish to point out that if some people use the old one and other people use the new one, we'll all be worse off, because neither will have all the information. Keep the old one, move everything to the new one - whatever. Either option is better than having two.

[enggrad]

Since the Environmental Science stuff is gone from the old Wiki here's a link for a new one.

It's everything environmental and then some...

earth science, geology, environmental science, environmental chemistry, environmental engineering, environmental studies

Right now it is mostly second-hand info so please...if you know something, post it!

[killerapp]

I can't believe how bent out of shape people are getting about the format and location of a "job gossip" blog.  You'll hear from the places who want to interview/hire you.  You may or may not hear from those who decide to pass on your application.  It may be wise to stop adding stress to what is already a stressful situation by worrying so much over the pros and cons of wiki locations.