Wiki Thoughts
On the positive side, a Wiki does seem like the ideal way to present some of the information. For example, some people have offered up names and contact information for "trusted taxi drivers". The current site structure doesn't offer a good way to "add a name to the list" so you find this information spread all over in comments.
If "trusted taxi drivers" was a wiki page, people could just add their favorites to that page. This is but one example. Many of the Resource pages here (for example, ones about a particular city) currently are owned by one person. Thus, revisions can only be placed in comments or by contacting the owner.
On the other hand, Wikis have disadvantages. Two concerns are:
- People not understanding how to use a Wiki.
- Dealing with SPAM in the wiki.
I have been doing my homework and it looks like a new "node type" (all the pages you see on NL are called nodes, whether they are a blog with comments, forum topic with comments, ...) that is/works like a typical Wiki page. There is quite a bit of discussion about how to get all the Wiki features such as hierarchical pages in the implementation. I am asking you to think about what we really need so that I can implement something that makes sense. Here are my current thoughts:
- For the most part, people will not need to create new Wiki pages. That is, a moderator can decide where a wiki page is appropriate and create it. This may sound restrictive but it is pretty much like how the Resource section is already. The structure was supplied by, in general, the administrator. This has the advantage of creating a reasonable structure rather than having to go back and fix it.
- Once a page is created, any regular user would be able to modify it. Thus, if there was a "trusted taxi drivers" page, any logged-in user could edit the page.
- One by one, current pages that would make more sense as a Wiki page could be converted.
- A WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor would be available (and not just for Wiki pages) so you really wouldn't have to understand Wiki syntax in order to edit the pages.
- The versioning system would allow moderators to back out inappropriate changes,
- There would be a "talk tab" associated with each Wiki page for discussion of content issues.
While the trusted taxi drivers list is a good example, there are many others. Here are some I can think of off the top of my head:
- Dealing with the airport. This would link to transport pages and such but just general airport info needs a page.
- Where to find things. For example, I located some things in Managua yesterday that I figured I needed to import. This could be quite a few pages for specific types of things.
- Restaurant info. Something topical (such as the recent discussion of vegetarian options in Estelí better fits a Wiki format.
- Importing, shipping, ...
- Lists such as press, radio stations, TV stations, ... which will need updates.
To summarize, someone just reading NL content would see no change other than, hopefully, better organization of information. For those contributing, there would be the added ability to put changes where the belong rather than having to append a comment or create a different page.


A Test
I just created a new role (permission set) such that some people can create and edit nodes of type "Story" In theory, anyone with this role should be able to edit any Story node—no matter who created it.
If this works, it is a quick and dirty way to add "anyone can update it" content. But, it is just "an idea" right now. I gave the following users this new permission:
Why these people? Because they had been on recently when I was eetting the stuff up and they are relatively long-term users.
I am going to change some of the pages in Regions or Resources to type Story. Then we can play. Or, create a new note of type story and see if others can change it.
Oops, most of the pages are in books. So, I just added the same "should be able to edit others work" capability for books as well. Let' see if it flies.
Wikis good
I happen to be fond of wikis, and think they can be great sources of information when used correctly. We created one for a statistics course I took a few years ago and personally I thought it was a great way of organizing information, and getting all the students involved in organizing and teaching the information as well as reading it.
I don't know if the node you're talking about will allow this. However, one possible solution to the 2 problems you've listed above - without creating undue work for yourself - would be to incorporate some sort of flagging or rating system. Whereby an inappropriate (e.g., spam, flame-y, etc.) post could be flagged or rated by users, and after x number of flags it would be removed (either automatically or by the site manager).
Personally, I would add to wikis for which I had useful information.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Wiki strengths and weaknesses
Wikis are great for storing knowledge. They are good for collaboratively building a repository of knowledge.
They are poor for discussions. They are not great for posting questions and getting back answers. It tends to be much more difficult to scan to see what is really new that might be of interest to me.
The current NL sort of serves both purposes, but due to the forum/blog format ends up being more discussion-oriented. Maybe the site should have two sections, one more blog/forum oriented, and one more wiki-like?
That is actually what I am advocating
While this isn't a perfect example right now, Links, Resources and Regions could probably be generally better served by a Wiki format. Right now, people tend to ask a question (with a lot of the same questions) in the forums because the "reference" area is either out of date or hard to search.
As it is, maintaining it is mostly my job. If it was a Wiki, it would then move to community maintenance.
Maybe, and I am still thinking about this, just changing those pages to "anyone can edit" would actually work. The structure would remain "as designed". It appears this could be done using Organic Groups.
Note that the goal here is not "content control", it is presentation control. If pages that could be group updated didn't "move around" it would be a lot easier to keep all the pointers from the rest of the site correct.