IGKT on Wiki encyclopedia

General Discussion
1

Here is a wiki entry for the IGKT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Guild_of_Knot_Tyers

Here is an entry for the bible of knot books - Ashley Book of Knots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashley_Book_of_Knots

By the way, I note the following from this wiki entry:
“The Ashley Book of Knots is an encyclopedia of knots first published in 1944 by Clifford Ashley. The culmination of over 11 years of work, it contains some 7000 illustrations and more than 3854 entries covering over 2000 different knots. The entries include instructions, uses, and for some knots, histories, and are categorized by type or usage. It remains one of the most important books on knots, as it is one of the most extensive, covering both good knots and bad, and noting which is which.”

I cringed when I read the reference to “2000 different knots”.

I can see Dan Lehman rolling on the carpet laughing hysterically at these figures…

…

Anyhow, the point of my post:

Did an IGKT member make this wiki entry?
Is this ABoK entry endorsed by the IGKT?

To Derek Smith: - Perhaps wiki is the perfect place for you and the IGKT to publish knot test results and other IGKT knotting wisdom?

I think this could be a way forward - for the IGKT to further promote itself to the world.

As far as i know, uploading new entries to wiki is free??

Is this an attractive option for you guru IGKT members?

I for one am keen to see people of the caliber of Derek and Dan make some wiki entries on knots…

agent smith

2

While the advertising and link to the IGKT site is good news, I hope the IGKT never uses Wiki to publish information. As Derek will tell you, we have been here before, and while entries can be changed willy nilly by anyone - DON’T believe everything you read - I will oppose the Guild using it.

Gordon

3
I cringed when I read the reference to "2000 different knots". I can see Dan Lehman rolling on the carpet laughing hysterically at these figures...

Not so fast: the difference between the usual blind assertion of “over 3,000” or such
and “2000” is nearly double; it implies that some effort to count was made, as opposed
to looking at the last image-reference # “3854” only. And if DFred is involved, the count
deserves careful consideration. One will get sizeable counts of “multi-strand knots”
and “button knots”; but 2,000 is still a lot (and might include splices). To the general
reader, it comes off as “a wayyyy lot”, and that’s fairly accurate; it is perhaps most
misleading in suggesting that one will find any knot of practical use, as there are
some common knots NOT included. (Charles Warner’s smaller book has around
500 knots in it, I believe–not sure how many might depend on distinctions of use
for a similar structure.)

As some separate thread, reporting on a background task, we might endeavor
to arrive at a real count by enumerating the particular knots in [i][u]ABOK,
w/some focusing on the practical, others on the decorative (incl. sennits etc.).

–dl*

4

Hi Agent Smythe,

If you take one of the links to wikipedia that you cite, then look across the tabs at the top of the page, you will see four tabs – ‘article’, ‘discussion’, ‘edit this page’ and ‘history’. If you then click the ‘history’ tab you will see the list of every change that has been made to the page, when and by whom (at least the username of the person editing the page). You will see that a lot of the content has been put there by one of this forums members – our Dfred. Of course, Dfred does not tell us if they are a member of the IGKT (nor do they have to), nor is there any indication that any formal representative of the IGKT has made any contribution to the pages (but this in itself is a highly unlikely event). Dfred on the other hand has made a significant contribution to this set of wikipedia pages and has been relatively free from other input on the structure and pages he has generated.

I am registered with Wikepedia (it’s free) and if I were to click on the ‘edit this page’ tag, then I (or anyone else that registers) would then be free to change the content of any one of those pages. If Dfred, or anyone else, did not like what I had written then they could delete or re-edit my contribution to favour their own opinion. The spirit of wikipedia is that differences of opinion are resolved by debate on the ‘discuss’ tab and then only the final resolution is edited into the article page.

The strength of a wiki is that its content can be the sum total of a large number of peoples knowledge experience and perspectives. The weakness of a wiki is that some of that knowledge, experience and perspective can be wrong and it relies on the wisdom, skill and commitment of the contributors to remove the errors. This in turn requires that all the contributors have the same goal / agenda, but reality conspires to ensure that a whole range of agendas will be engaged and frequently they will be at odds with one another. I have personal experience of this. On one food safety topic I had been posting quotes from a publication by the World Health Organisation, yet despite the factual origin of my content, my contributions were regularly removed and/or corrupted by a number of people with an agenda to promote insect diversity over human safety and on Wikepedia there is nothing you can do about this situation.

For this reason, I find it advantageous to restrict wiki participation to a select group of invited members, hence the PBWiki sites.

Derek

5

Thanks for the replies.

And thanks DL for sharing your thoughts re the ‘count’ of ‘2000’ knots. I never really thought you’d roll around on a carpet choking and gasping.

Also to DerekSmith in explaining your reasoning with regard to the wiki site. If I interpret you correctly, the wiki can be its own worst enemy. I suppose when you open yourself up to the world, of course there will be differences of opinion. I can see a situation where one individual might conspire to exert his/her influence by deleting information that he/she felt was unpalatable or contradictory to ones views. Hmmm, who is right and who is wrong? I am trying to visualise the type of person who might be inclined to ‘override’ an IGKT identified senior members post.

I presume that the wiki managers/founders have a way of resolving disputes… Afterall, its in the best interests to publish factual information that contributes to world knowledge (and not vice versa).

Perhaps the PBWiki site will bare fruit and the original wiki never will?

I guess I’ll have to take a close look at the PBWiki site and go from there…

agent smythe (or is that smith)

6

I missed this thread the first time around…

At the time the question was posed by Derek, I was not a Guild member but I now am as of the beginning of the year. But in either case, all contributions (mine or anyone’s) to Wikipedia (WP) are required to be individual contributions. So Fairlead’s objection to the Guild, as an organization, using WP to publish information is an idea that would also be disallowed by WP’s own policies. I think WP has great potential as a world-wide community resource, especially given Google’s favorable placement of its pages in search results. However I’m not one of those who has quaffed the Coolaid and believes it will be the Final Compendium of All Human Knowledgetm.

There is a lot of policy (much of it now verging on red tape) that provides checks and balances to the WP editing process which keeps the signal-to-noise ratio reasonably good. However one of the pillars of WP is that no original research is allowed. If one spends any significant time editing on WP, it is clear this restriction is absolutely necessary for a general purpose encyclopedia. However the Guild’s mission is somewhat different and much more focused. Its membership (and thus possible contributors) represent a vast store of knowledge both historical and original, both theoretical and empirical. I’ve been thinking recently about something between a classic wiki where everything is editable and a peer-reviewed process to start collecting and distilling knotting knowledge. The Guild seems like the perfect body to manage such a collaborative project, and well within its stated scope and objectives… The results of this IGKT project would provide the highly authoritative primary/secondary sources which are needed for the bedrock of more user-oriented articles in Wikipedia, etc. I know there are knot book authors who might see this kind of thing as a threat to their livelihoods, but I suspect most would candidly admit that no real progress is being made by writing yet one more 120 page knot book. I think the next true step forward in knot knowledge will need to enlist an entirely new method of data collection, systematization, and editorial process. The scale of such a project is not to be underestimated; it should, if possible, be conceived to eventually support hard science-type empirical results in knot testing, theoretical physical modeling, etc.

After getting a few issues of KM, I’m thinking that perhaps an article fleshing-out some of these ideas might be in order… But I might like a few folks to bounce ideas off of before taking that step, and I’m not sure whether the forums are the right place, private email, or something else?

But getting back to the original topic of the IGKT entry on WP, I’ll see what I can do to clean it up. But as other’s have stated, anybody can edit this page whether they have an account or not. Just click on the edit tab at the top of the page. :slight_smile:

7

Opposing the use of the wikipedia because some info can be bad is not the right attitude, IMHO. It’s up to us (each and every one) to make the world a better place (both the real world and the virtual/digital one). As for wikipedia, use it, improve it, don’t endorse it if you are worried about absolute correctness. Not using it as the an official outlet of information is also perfectly fine, but seething at the screen which has given you bad information is not a useful expenditure of energy. I had to have a little bit of an edit war with someone on the Chinese knotting entry to correct some misinformation (who knew that someone else cared enough about the topic to “argue” with me about it, especially when they were wrong? 8) 8) In any case, if you see something wrong, you can just fix it, it’s easy. 8)

1 Like
8

Wikipedias are like the internet, but without any of the accountability. :frowning:

9

Part of the voluntary work I do for the Guild is to help in the project aimed at safeguarding all the back copies of KM and making them available in pdf file format. As a consequence of this work I have been lucky enough to have sight of the very first publication of KM. The first article in it, is a letter from Geoffrey Budworth the then Secretary and Editor. The excitement is palpable and the letter ends with a call for action from the members :–

Now, an all-out recruiting drive is called for. Display a
handbill in your local library showing yourself as the local
representative. If you travel, distribute handbills along the way with
the Hon. Secretary’s address. Secure space in your local paper; chat
on local radio or T.V. if you can. Spread the news about the I.G-.K.T.
It really is the most exciting prospect since the Ashley Book of Knots.

Move forward 25 years and the last issue of KM includes an article by Knut Canute. It contains a wisdom which has been guiding the Guild for the last 25 years and it points the way forward – not to be backward looking, fossilised in doctrine and dogma, but to look forward with Dynamism, Curiosity, challenge and Heresy. He then councils – And such initiatives, please note, will be achieved not by the corporate IGKT … but by individual Guild members who pursue their own drives and preoccupations. … Wisdom indeed.

One of the key ways to observe this wisdom is, I believe, to organise the presentation of knots on the internet so that billions of people may access a contribution that is crafted by the hand of members of the IGKT (after all, as Canute points out, we ARE the IGKT).

Dfred, I am fully convinced of the value of the Wiki tool for collaborative projects, but as I mentioned before, I am sadly disillusioned with the nonsense that a majority can enforce on Wikepedia, and having seen it at first hand on one subject I have no reason not to believe it could be imposing rubbish into contributions at every level. And as we have seen on this Forum, some people only get delight by spoiling either content or atmosphere.

My goal remains to create a wiki library of knots, and information allied to those knots, and for that wiki to be placed eventually into the control and guardianship of the IGKT Webmistress and Moderators. But guided by the wisdom of Canute I am reminded that the creation and construction of such a library must be driven exclusively by members with the will and innovation to make it happen.

Today we have a number of tools at our disposal which together might transpire to make this goal attainable.

We have the membership of the IGKT to call upon for participation.
We have this forum to enable discussion, debate, reasoning and decision (maybe warrants asking for a panel just for Index discussions).
We have a wiki that has been reviewed by our Webmistress for its design and suitability http://igktworkshop.pbwiki.com/
We have a drawing tool to schematacise diagrams http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher
And we have the fledgling Binary Index to classify knots as an enhancement to the Overs Index.

Over the next few weeks I will enhance the drawing utility to incorporate the facility to calculate the OI and the Binary index of any drawn diagram and a link so the Binary Index can display the Wiki page for that Index. I will also work to put a number of example index pages onto the wiki to demonstrate the principle.

Dfred, with your Wikepedia experience, would you feel confident to lead the development of the template for a knot page layout? By now you will have had to address many issues relating to multiple names, uses, methods of tying and trivial variations etc. and will have considered the scope of information relating to each knot that we should look to include.

It IS a huge task, but we at least now have the tools to start the project - anyone game?

DerekSmith

10

Hi Derek,

I love the idea of getting more information to more people - so as a member of the Guild will you please consider putting an article or two in KM (of which I am now the new editor)? I will be delighted to add a regular piece by you, FCB or any other of our Guild members to share, about a knot wiki or anything else you feel would be appropriate, with those who are not blessed with internet access or who do not wish it upon their worst enemy! Think about the feedback (which inevitably will be greater than here)!

SR :wink:

11

Hi Lindsey,

Thanks for the invite, yes happy to.

How do you want the copy - raw text and jpg images to allow you to lay out the article to fit available space or pre-layed out in A5? Do you have any guidance on ideal size of article or limits?

With our tiny numbers spread around the globe, I agree that every form of communication should be utilised, even if it makes reference to the joint demons of computers and the internet.

Oh, and welcome Ed.

Derek