Cannipedia

Rather than have several threads floating around about various topics (e.g. the Aerogarden) why not setup a Wiki system where manuals can be honed via a wiki system (SourceForge.net: MediaWiki)?

Multiple versions of setups (once again, e.g. the Aerogarden) could be done as well, and filed as disambiguations as well as under categories.

An FAQ would be much preferred to any kind of wiki ...

The perpetual downfall of a "wiki" system is that pretty much anybody can edit a document. All one can do is hope that the contributor is in fact knowledgeable on the topic and is posting facts rather than opinions. What actually happens is that eventually either malicious people edit in their own bias and bigotry, or dimwits edit in non-facts and half-truths.

Look at the main "Wikipedia". Far too many articles are factually inaccurate, which is bad enough in an encyclopedia, but because of the makeup of the main contributors and arbitrators (who include pedophile enthusiasts, convicted fraud artists, conspiracy theorists, and just plain moonbats), any article that CAN contain bias or opinion WILL end up doing so, to the detriment of anybody seeking factual information. The entire concept is inherently flawed and anything quoted from there must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

An FAQ with a small group of actual experts deciding what goes into it is much more usable. In fact, they are developing just such a document here.

Experts state that cannabis is bad (gateway drug, schizophrenzia, more crime, etc), so perhaps they could be the ones that edit the FAQs? After all, there are so many amateurs on here who don't realize the true dangers of cannabis...

I meant experts at growing weed ... but you knew that

My point in writing that was to highlight subjectivism. This site ROCKS because it has A LOT of good information contributed by users, and some of that user base happens to be comprised of experts (though none of the experts on here have any certificates or licenses to prove that they've gone through rigorous accredited testing and/or training, so calling them experts is subjective in and of itself).

Your "pedophile enthusiasts, convicted fraud artists, conspiracy theorists, and just plain moonbats" line was not only a broad assumption, but also pretty funny reading. I can see the new documentary coming out now: "Wiki Madness" which would be almost identical to "Reefer Madness" but highlighting the dangers of wikis in much the same way that the dangers of reefer were highlighted. If wikis are near as bad as you make them out to be, then why are experts such as Dell Computers implementing more wikis?: DELL COMPUTERS: IDEAS IN ACTION based upon users asking for it at Popular Stories - Dell IdeaStorm?

If a wiki is fully out of the question (even though it does have a user account system, ways to check for differences in edits, locking [well-written] articles, etc, and thus could provide good quality control) then a PHP.net type setup would be my 2nd choice. Here's an example: PHP: fread - Manual <--- notice all the user-contributed notes underneath, which could then be moved into the actual notes themselves?

The reason I'm pushing for a wiki setup is because then people could look up various setups and follow instructions all the way from germinating to fruition and perhaps even follow a weekly checklist, etc. It would be a lot easier for people to tell chemo/aids/fibromyalgia/etc patients to check out http://wiki.rollitup.org/Aerogarden than to tell someone that's already in a fair chunk of pain to spend countless hours at the computer reading through forums and faqs and to try and tie it all together. Time is of the essence for some people, in which case I view this as a means of expediting help.

MajoR_TokE posted up a link to a do-it-yourself aeroponic unit that is very well documented, and already in use by a mutual friend that's suffering from fibromyalgia (amongst other adverse health issues that doctors haven't been able to treat/cure FOR YEARS) and they were up and running in no time because the documentation was pretty well written. If it were a wiki, then this person could get on and edit in subtle changes (or just create a new wiki page but as a different version that's accessible via a disambiguation page) such as their better way of running the power cord out of the box, and a better seal system that absolutely keeps the water in since they ran into problems with the weather stripping as well.

Wikis are simply a revolution in action my friend. I feel that I've made the points I needed to make, so you've got last word. Here's hoping the remainder of your weekend is going well.

I don't see how your points supporting a wiki are any different than what occurs right now in this forum, or any forum for that matter. People make informative posts, someone adds a bit, someone else disputes/discusses a point, and so on. This can sometimes be collected into an FAQ to put many important answers in one place.

Your suggestion would seem to be to allow someone (anyone) to edit an informative post, deleting or rewriting facts, inserting bogus information or wild speculations, etc. Some posts here deal with technical stuff, like say, electricity. It would be hazardous to allow any joker off the street to be able to make changes to that kind of info.

To use your example of a very informative post, Major_Toke would have to constantly monitor his post to ensure it doesn't get wrecked. Rest assured, there are plenty of assholes on the Internet who enjoy defacing other people's work. I think the best solution is to simply prevent them from doing so.

You didn't address my earlier points, but there is nothing good about wikis that doesn't already exist with forums and FAQs. wikis have no upside, and the obvious downside makes them inevitably unworkable.

finally, to my mind, not all revolutions are improvements!

have a good weekend