Wiki.videoSift.com Beta


In direct response to @spoco2's request, @lucky760 has been putting in some hours to integrate a simple Wiki with VideoSift. It's available here Wiki.videosift.com.

It's just been switched on, and might be a bit buggy to start with. The VideoSift userbase is integrated with the Wiki - but doesn't yet work with Facebook. To get in and make edits, try logging out of VideoSift - and then logging back in, old school style (no Facebook Connect). You can then log in to the wiki with your username and password that you use on VideoSift. Please note, that the user account systems are just lightly connected - logging out of the Wiki won't log you out of VideoSift.

[edit]
If you are connected to VideoSift via Facebook or if you are logged into VideoSift with your login/password, you should automatically be logged into the Wiki. Whenever you log out of VideoSift or the Wiki, you will be logged out of both (and also logged out of Facebook if you are connected).
[/edit]

Help us test it out and make some edits - feel free to crib from the various VideoSift documentation pages that are scattered around VideoSift.

Thanks to Spoco2 for thinking of it - and Lucky for putting in the hours to get it up so quickly.
blankfist says...

I'm so gonna troll this shit.

"Earning Star Points

VideoSift is a community based site that rewards its users for participation. One of the basic reward systems in place is a ranking policy based on what the homosexual site owner calls "star points". The fastest way to earn star points is to discard or kill videos for no reason at all. Another way is to leave extremely sexist comments on any and all videos."

xxovercastxx says...

The first problem I foresee is we're going to need you, @dag, or @lucky760 to write up some guidelines. Otherwise it's only a matter of time until someone decides to write their own rules for the site.

At least lay out what should and shouldn't be part of the wiki. I suggest starting off with a pretty narrow scope and expanding as we go.

I've got a ton of experience with wiki content creation, having created nearly all the content in the ~2000 page wiki at my last job. My enthusiasm is somewhat stifled by the blight on humanity that is MediaWiki syntax but, if given some guidelines, I will edit the shit out of that wiki anyway.

lucky760 says...

Sorry for the login troubles across VS and the wiki. Took me several hours to figure out what the issue was. I was certain it was something I did (it usually is), but this time it was a server module surprise.

Login synchronization is all fixed now!

kronosposeidon says...

Where will the Wiki link be on the front page when it's ready for prime time? Will it be another top-level tab?

Also, I think that editing privileges should be given only to Silver stars or higher. It takes a little time to learn the ropes here, so I don't think we want n00bs editing. Besides, we also don't need spam or vandalism on the Wiki - and it WILL show up if you let any member edit it.

One more thing: Like @xxovercastxx stated, clear guidelines need to be established for what goes into the Wiki and what doesn't. I think the Wiki should be a How-to guide, maybe with entries that contain a little Sift history and who the admins are. I DON'T think it should include entries about specific videos (like what videos were popular at one time), or specific channels (the channels already have their descriptions at the top, along with the channel's supreme overlord), or Sift Talk posts, or ANY members (outside of the admins). We don't need to know what @blankfist fears (everything).

And @dotdude, I'm not having the problem that you're having at all, and I use Firefox, Chrome, and Opera, on a PC.

jonny says...

Same problem here. The layout of the header on every VS page is squished to the left. >> ^dotdude:

I still do not see tabs for Members, SiftTalk and Blogs. This has been going on since yesterday. I'm using the current Firefox browser on my Mac Pro.

Hybrid says...

I'm still being logged out of the main VideoSift site when I visit the wiki. >> ^lucky760:

Sorry for the login troubles across VS and the wiki. Took me several hours to figure out what the issue was. I was certain it was something I did (it usually is), but this time it was a server module surprise.
Login synchronization is all fixed now!

spoco2 says...

Wow, you guys are fricken awesome. Top marks Dag and Lucky! That is some ultra speedy action there.



Thanks a load. If I find the time (which is unfortunately unlikely at this current juncture as work just decided to get crazy busy I will definitely do some editing on there.

You guys rock a place not unlike the Casbah

berticus says...

Can't be logged in to both. One or the other.

"Login error
There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Are you still getting this error Bertie? I'm not able to duplicate it.>> ^berticus:

Can't be logged in to both. One or the other.
"Login error
There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."

jonny says...

>> ^dag:

Are you still getting this error Bertie? I'm not able to duplicate it.>> ^berticus:
Can't be logged in to both. One or the other.
"Login error
There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."



I just reproduced it, which is weird since it was working fine after Lucky's comment Saturday. I was able to login at wiki (didn't get the login error), but was still logged out here at videosift.com. The wiki login doesn't seem stable either. Login info only seems valid on the Main Page, i.e., I'm not logged in when going to any other page on the wiki, but going back to the Main Page restores it (login info in header and edit links return).

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK - @lucky760 will need to have a look at it. >> ^jonny:

>> ^dag:
Are you still getting this error Bertie? I'm not able to duplicate it.>> ^berticus:
Can't be logged in to both. One or the other.
"Login error
There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."


I just reproduced it, which is weird since it was working fine after Lucky's comment Saturday. I was able to login at wiki (didn't get the login error), but was still logged out here at videosift.com. The wiki login doesn't seem stable either. Login info only seems valid on the Main Page, i.e., I'm not logged in when going to any other page on the wiki, but going back to the Main Page restores it (login info in header and edit links return).

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag

I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...

>> ^rottenseed:

Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

kronosposeidon says...

Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.

And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.

The *dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The * discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:

Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.


dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.

Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.


>> ^kronosposeidon:

Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.



kronosposeidon says...

Who decides what's "true"? The community? Does the majority always get the "truth" right? And if it isn't "true", then what recourse does a banned member have to get it fixed? If they send you an email to fix it and you do so, what's to stop someone else from coming along and changing it right back?

Also, sometimes the "truth" is going to be ugly. No member has been banned for handing out compliments or fixing wrongfully discarded videos. In other words, the truth can be "offensive". So if you post anything that someone finds "offensive", does it automatically mean it should be redacted? And what if someone posts more information about a member than that member wants known to the general public? Sure, it can be redacted, but by then the damage may already have been done.

I know that people are big part of this place. I've said that many times myself. It's out of respect for the people here, past and present, that I want tight controls on articles about members. Would you want anyone to be able to edit your Facebook page, even if you abandoned it ages ago?

I share as much as I want with people here, some members more than others. I don't want all of it or even half of it on VideoSift's wiki, along with editorials about comments and character. Not everything needs or even deserves to be documented, especially while people are still active here, or even alive. Sooner or later it's going to be abused. And magically erasing material won't erase the damage that's been done.
>> ^dag:

I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.
Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.




dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The same abuse you mention is no more or less likely to happen in comments here on the main VideoSift site as they are in the Wiki. Our same conduct rules apply accross the VideoSift community. If someone is conducting themselves inappropriately - all we can do remove the content and deal with the poster - as usual.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Who decides what's "true"? The community? Does the majority always get the "truth" right? And if it isn't "true", then what recourse does a banned member have to get it fixed? If they send you an email to fix it and you do so, what's to stop someone else from coming along and changing it right back?
Also, sometimes the "truth" is going to be ugly. No member has been banned for handing out compliments or fixing wrongfully discarded videos. In other words, the truth can be "offensive". So if you post anything that someone finds "offensive", does it automatically mean it should be redacted? And what if someone posts more information about a member than that member wants known to the general public? Sure, it can be redacted, but by then the damage may already have been done.
I know that people are big part of this place. I've said that many times myself. It's out of respect for the people here, past and present, that I want tight controls on articles about members. Would you want anyone to be able to edit your Facebook page, even if you abandoned it ages ago?
I share as much as I want with people here, some members more than others. I don't want all of it or even half of it on VideoSift's wiki, along with editorials about comments and character. Not everything needs or even deserves to be documented, especially while people are still active here, or even alive. Sooner or later it's going to be abused. And magically erasing material won't erase the damage that's been done.
>> ^dag:
I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.
Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.





kronosposeidon says...

Dag, it ain't as simple as that. No one can edit my member page. BUT, they sure as hell could edit my VS Wiki page. They could set up a page about me, or anyone else, even if we don't want it. Will we even have any say about that? Or are you telling us that simply by being a member here at any time, past or present, we have automatically consented to allowing anyone here to write an article about us on the Wiki? Even if they write lies about us and then you ban them, the damage has already been done. There's a term for that: cold comfort.

And this isn't the same as someone writing a bad comment about a member. Comments quickly fade into the pages. Bad remarks and information won't fade so quickly if they're enshrined in a searchable Wiki entry.

I honestly can't believe that you think potential abuses are outweighed by some misbegotten sense of historical necessity. This is just a website, not a nation with a vast, expansive history that needs to be recorded in detail for the sake of posterity. Snakeplissken wasn't Charlemagne, MINK wasn't Lincoln. They weren't even Lady Gaga. What you're talking about would have as much historical value as the National Enquirer.

So can we opt out of having a Wiki entry about us AHEAD of time, and not have to delete it ourselves (maybe repeatedly), or are we just out of luck? >> ^dag:

The same abuse you mention is no more or less likely to happen in comments here on the main VideoSift site as they are in the Wiki. Our same conduct rules apply accross the VideoSift community. If someone is conducting themselves inappropriately - all we can do remove the content and deal with the poster - as usual.

xxovercastxx says...

@kronosposeidon @dag

You can't realistically stop someone from creating a standard page about a user as @Shepppard has done. This is not unique; I could go right now and create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronosposeidon, http://www.dokuwiki.org/kronosposeidon, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kronosposeidon, http://conservapedia.com/Kronosposeidon, and so on. All we can realistically do about this is make a rule about it and enforce that rule when the problem arises.

User pages can be restricted and quite possibly should be. There's always the discussion page for public commentary.

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

My god - welcome to the public Internet folks. If you're all really worried about registered members (not the general public mind you) posting something nasty about you on your user page - we'll restrict it to disallow this, but I don't think it warrants the reaction.

BTW I'm just about to go create my Kronosposseiden.blogspot.com page. Man, the tales I will tell.

kronosposeidon says...

@xxovercastxx

I know with wikis anyone can post a page about anything, but in most cases the stupid-ass articles are deleted for non-compliance. That's why I agree with you that we should have rules. If we have tight rules about what should be posted and what shouldn't be, then an article like Sheppard posted about me could be deleted immediately and without question because it was about a member, because (as I suggested) articles about any member should be forbidden in the first place. (BTW, it will be interesting how long that entry will stay there. The Streisand effect and all.) But if articles about members are going to be allowed, then members should be allowed to opt out of it, meaning that no articles about that member should be allowed at all.

@dag

If you want everyone to know that you bought your first 300 bps modem in 1985 for the Apple IIe, can't you put that on your profile page? Info about your good Neil Diamond impersonation might also find a better home on your profile page, or in someone's blog post, or in a video's comments section, rather than in a wiki which was originally conceived as a VS user manual.

And thanks for welcoming me to the public internet. If anyone wants to create a blog dedicated to me that's his prerogative. However, I had this crazy idea that at least here we could be a little respectful to the wishes of our fellow members. Am I being so demanding, just because I'd like to see us not write lame articles about each other (including members who haven't been here in eons) that would make tabloids look like Pulitzer material? And how many other community sites have wikis with information about their own members? And before you answer that along the lines of "the Sift is special", well, it ain't that special.

My 'reaction' to this issue is "Please, we can do better than this."

spoco2 says...

OK, happened again, just clicked on the link to the page in the wiki mentioned above and then tried to comment here and I was logged out of VS.

My comment, btw, was to tell people to just grow up, yes people can write stuff that's untrue in a wiki (OMGWTFBBQ!), but you know what? Others can correct it, and change it again... and correct it again, it's the nature of Wikis, seems to have worked ok for quite some time.

Just let people be, sure there'll be lies and slander, but it'll pass. Just give it a rest with all this need for rules and limits.

kronosposeidon says...

Like I said, how many web communities have wikis about there own members? I'm sure there are a few, but not many. And I'm sure the idea of a wiki with member information isn't new. At all. I have a feeling most other sites don't do it for a reason. 'Lies and slander' in a small community like ours aren't to be shrugged off so casually. >> ^spoco2:

OK, happened again, just clicked on the link to the page in the wiki mentioned above and then tried to comment here and I was logged out of VS.
My comment, btw, was to tell people to just grow up, yes people can write stuff that's untrue in a wiki (OMGWTFBBQ!), but you know what? Others can correct it, and change it again... and correct it again, it's the nature of Wikis, seems to have worked ok for quite some time.
Just let people be, sure there'll be lies and slander, but it'll pass. Just give it a rest with all this need for rules and limits.

Shepppard says...

Alright, yes the Wiki pages are community moderated.. but therin lies the problem. Lets see, I could go and post a page right now about, say, Ol Choggie.

Personally, I saw him as an over-the-top troll.

However, I know for a FACT that there are other sifters that disagree and saw him as some sort of messiah.

What's going to happen? Will it be war vs the two sides? Do I get my say, or do they get their say?

And on KP's side, although Choggie has technically forfeit his right to have any input (lets overlook that fact for the sake of the example) what would happen if he didn't want a page written about him at all?

Lets limit it to this:

The only way member wikis should be created are with the explicit consent of the member it's being written about. That way they have to essentially agree to have a certain member write for them (and they'll already know who it is)

Also, would it be possible for the member it's of to get an email every time it gets changed, much like an email is sent when someone comments on a video you've posted / bookmarked?

That way:

A) Nobody can be written about unless they want it

and

B) They always know when their page has been updated, so they can see that they've been called a communistic child molester.

AdrianBlack says...

My question is, do you forfeit individual rights when you join a community? Can a privately owned site (such as this) do what it feels is neccessary for the welfare and betterment of the site, regardless of indivdual opinion?
If that is the case, I guess we are lucky that our opinions are being considered at all.

That being said, I don't see the need for member pages on Wiki to make this site better. Like two points already mentioned, it would be redundant since we have profile pages, and because this was originally brought up as an idea for a more comprehensive how-to sift guide. Not an entire history book that anyone can edit.

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As you can tell by this thread - there was quite a lot of controversy generated by the VideoSift wiki. It died an ignoble death from neglect. For more information try the "Useful Pages" link in the sidebar -------->

peter12 said:

Does Videosift-Wiki (still) exist? Or, Are there any other information sources besides the FAQ?

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Reading these comments and poll comments I'm still bitter and angry about how this all turned out. I consider this to be a personal failure and a failure of our community. Sorry for the necroposting.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

New Blog Posts from All Members