Firearms Wikipedia...

Discussion in 'FirearmsTalk Support and Suggestions' started by JoeB1987, Aug 3, 2010.

  1. JoeB1987

    JoeB1987 New Member

    73
    0
    0
    First and foremost, thank you to the administrators, moderators, and development team for managing a constructive and educative site.

    Secondly, I've noticed there isn't any good 'Firearms' Wikipedia throughout the web. Of course you can always browse the basic Wikipedia, but would it not be awesome to have one solely devoted to firearms? Now don't get me wrong, that would be one hell of an undertaking. Not to mention the research time...

    ...but what if it offered user created content? Open for editing only to 'Supporting Members' to cut down on bull**** entries. Also, user created content would mean less time spend by developers. Although, it would mean more work for moderators.

    But all that firearms information... In one place. Not to mention if someone were to type 'firearms wiki' or 'guns wiki' in any popular search engine, your wiki database would show up in the top few results.

    That would bring in a hell of a lot more guests, higher traffic, more clicks on advertisement banners... bottom line, more capital to invest on your site.

    Crazy, maybe...but it might be worth a shot. What could you be losing other then a couple hours of development time? :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2010
  2. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    On one hand I like the idea, but on the other hand, it would include a lot of inaccurate information (like the stuff I throw out here).
     

  3. JoeB1987

    JoeB1987 New Member

    73
    0
    0
    True but moderators, not to mention other users would be there to correct it. And just as in the forums, if you were to create an argumentative post it could be closed.

    Anyone else on board for at least attempting a test run?

    It. Could. Be. AWESOME.
     
  4. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    might be cool to try
     
  5. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    If I need random firearms information I just have to go to the shop and ask The Master. :)

    Might be an interesting concept though. The problem would be when you have people who THINK they know everything on a given subject, maybe they are a good contributor in other areas, so you are forced to weigh their information versus another source who isn't as known. Not a headache I would want.... well, outside of here that is. :eek:

    JD
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    At first glance, this seems like a smack-in-the-forehead moment. OF COURSE there should be a firearms wiki! And ammo with ballistics data. This is a no-brainer. Thanks, Joe.

    Can someone explain why we shouldn't do this? Would it really be a duplication of effort (from wikipedia)?
     
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    The nice thing(?) about wiki is others can make corrections and provide more info.

    It wouldn't be reasonable or feasible to guarantee every bit of info is 100% accurate. The glaring b.s. will float to the surface first and be corrected. Most stuff will probably be pretty accurate.
     
  8. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Yeah, and the bad thing is that people can come right back and change it again... LOL

    I think anytime you start throwing out ballastic information, especially for reloading purposes, you are opening a door to Pandora's other box that just could lead to problems.
     
  9. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    I am thinking of the responsibility of who will be blamed if someone blows up their firearm and files a lawsuit. Having informational words blow up is one thing where nobody is physically hurt, but mechanical blowups are another.
     
  10. ScottG

    ScottG New Member

    1,614
    0
    0
    IIRC, Kim Du Toit and his crowd tried to do it a couple of years ago. Didn't get very far for some reason. Too much work I think, and too much info to put in. You would end up with a very large and unwieldy database. You couldn't keep track of who said what or moderate it very well unless you had a full time person to do it.
     
  11. JoeB1987

    JoeB1987 New Member

    73
    0
    0
    That could be corrected with a little legal disclaimer stating visitors must browse at their own risk.

    People who just read something and believe it is true without verifying the source of the information are idiots to begin with.
     
  12. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    That has been proven more than once.
     
  13. JoeB1987

    JoeB1987 New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Maybe rules about not posting specific reloading information for rounds? Or moderators could remove those articles as they show up.

    Again, this could be put in a legal disclaimer, or a Terms of Acceptable Use Agreement.
     
  14. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,446
    559
    113
    Well, just for what it is worth-

    Wikipedia does have a very fair amount of firearms and ammo information.

    There is also a site called Wikianswers, that allows you to ask (or answer) a brief question. One of the categories is firearms. Now, anyone can answer, or change an answer, but their supervisors ride herd, cull the problem children, can lock an answer, etc. They can also swing the Ban Hammer, and smush vandals and idiots. They get about 50 gun questions a day. Questions on reloading data are referred to the powder company/ bullet company websites, with a caution about seeking data on an open forum.

    (Ahem) I'm one of the supervisors. :eek:
     
  15. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    9
    38
    We worked on something like a Wiki system, I will implement it and see how it goes next week.
     
  16. JoeB1987

    JoeB1987 New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Giant grin.