WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

Rxke · 2005-07-31 15:57:49

You're doing a great job, John!

John Creighton · 2005-07-31 18:23:50

You're doing a great job, John!

thanks

Anyway I filled in a few of the pages that are linked form my fundamentals of space exploration page. Perhaps this is obvious but if anyone wants to see what changes are being made click on the link that says recent history.

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 13:57:57

This page:
http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/H … trajectory

needs to be renamed I think. I think it is spelled wrong. Isn't thre an f in there?

BWhite · 2005-08-01 15:22:25

The sun is the bright yellow light we see during the day.

Priceless!

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 15:24:39

The sun is the bright yellow light we see during the day.
Priceless!

Oh man you gave me a good laugh there but I supose sometime people have to learn what the sun is.

edit: feel free to edit it.

Rxke · 2005-08-01 15:39:38

Hohmann is correct. Also called Hohmann transfer orbit.

(Double checked with Google, heh)

Rxke · 2005-08-01 16:18:59

Bear with me for a moment, I'm going to ramble, I'm afraid...

I've been thinking about this Wiki thing...

There is one problem with building a Wiki from scratch: The official Wikipedia project.

At least, I had the feeling, whenever I added something to NewMars Wiki, it was so.... Futile, whatever one comes up with, the official pedia has it, and more elaborate, to boot.

So I found myself sometimes typing away in TextEditor, and deleting it, instead of submitting it. I mean, what's the point entering hard facts, when those harde facts are only a click away at another place?

And I admit, that depressed me (like lots of things depress me, but that's something else...)

Then I thought... "But it's the NewMars Wiki, I shouldn't care about the Official Wiki, it's what NewMars people do and think, have ideas about, have knowledge about."

Case in point: John's entries. It's different reading HIS entries, compared to reading the Wikipeda, or Mathworld, HowStuffWorks, Spaceref.... stuff.

Because John is part of a group of people we 'know,' it makes those entries different.

It really adds something to it. And I do not mean emotionally, but factually.
I know, if something about his entries confuses me, I can go to the 'discussions' tab and ASK him about it, or get second opinions from other people on the Wiki (for now, that last point is not yet a fact, but bear with me...)

I mean: here we have this wonderful messageboard, with people of all walks of life, with all different opiniions, but with one thing in common.
That makes a knowledge-base of sorts. But it's flawed. Posts, sometimes wonderfully original, detailed, outrageous food for thought (for instance: Karov's views, ideas re: terraforming...) are submitted, discussed... To eventually dissappear from view, due to the nature of how messageboards function. If you don't keep adding answers to a subject, it slowly 'sinks' out of view...

And that's a shame.

But now we've got a Wiki. If done right, that could change everything.
But it will take time and some non-trivial effort.

When I said there was one problem with the from-scratch Wiki thing, I lied, there are two problems.

Wiki's have a somewhat higher treshold re: submitting things.
At first, it looks so daunting, you either have a blank sheet, *or* an already elaborate subject in front of you. One has to feel really committed to take the step to, yes, add your own stuff there. There's no big shiny "answer" button, for starters. There's no big "new topic" button, either.
Then, assuming that doesn't scare you off, and you feel brave enough to figure out how to actually add something, you enter a non-GUI text-editor environment, with weird stuff like having to type [[internal link here]] instead of clicking icons that do the formatting for you..

And I think that's a pity.

The New Mars community *deserves* a flourishing Wiki knowledge/way of life base.

So how do we get there?

I ask this, because it clearly isn't taking off in a major way. I mainly start empty 'coathangers' (stubs, in wikinese,) in the hope other people fill them in. Because I had this depressing "there's already better worded stuff out there" feeling, John is doing some great work (check it out, really check it out, whoever is following this thread) Bill adds stuff, clearly also with a underlying idea about the Wiki...
But that's *not* enough. We need more people.

And, I think, we need to "de-Wikify" this wiki. It does not have to be all tech stuff, you know, it does not have to be all 'given' articles, one can start discussions in a wiki, too.

Consider this, all ye lurkers : you can see the Wiki as your website! You can post whatever you're interested in, complete with pictures, and get some good feedback to boot! And you don't have to worry about setting the thing up, it's already there, if you have problems, there's bound to be a helping hand, coming from someone you know, a fellow New Mars enthousiast.

So, it can be a very rewarding experience, if you try...

But how?

How can we lure people? How can we lower the treshold?

I did some half-*ss*d copy and pasteing of the help pages from the official Wiki, but that's not enough.

Some suggestions:

*We need to write a GOOD manual. A short one, a How-to for absolute beginners, with links for more advanced features for the ones willing to get deeper into this.

*A prominent helppage, with FAQ. that help page begins with: "click 'edit' to enter your question" or something like that.

*there are some tools that makes entering text in wiki's more user-friendly. For example, the FireFox browser has an extension called 'wikipedia' that adds a toolbar, a bit like in a 'real' wordprocessor, so you can point-and-click formatting stuff etc. So you don't have to learn about those formating things, initially. I'm sure there are tools for other browsers etc.

*Expanding the scope on the New Mars Wiki, transfer some stuff from the msgboard that's non-tech, like the "good books you've read entries, poems, stories, Cindy's "new discoveries" etc.

*....

I said I was going to ramble, heh. But I'd like some second opiniions on this.

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 16:36:01

Bear with me for a moment, I'm going to ramble, I'm afraid...

I've been thinking about this Wiki thing...
There is one problem with building a Wiki from scratch: The official Wikipedia project.
At least, I had the feeling, whenever I added something to NewMars Wiki, it was so.... Futile, whatever one comes up with, the official pedia has it, and more elaborate, to boot.
So I found myself sometimes typing away in TextEditor, and deleting it, instead of submitting it. I mean, what's the point entering hard facts, when those harde facts are only a click away at another place?
And I admit, that depressed me (like lots of things depress me, but that's something else...)
Then I thought... "But it's the NewMars Wiki, I shouldn't care about the Official Wiki, it's what NewMars people do and think, have ideas about, have knowledge about."
Case in point: John's entries. It's different reading HIS entries, compared to reading the Wikipeda, or Mathworld, HowStuffWorks, Spaceref.... stuff.
Because John is part of a group of people we 'know,' it makes those entries different.
It really adds something to it. And I do not mean emotionally, but factually.
I know, if something about his entries confuses me, I can go to the 'discussions' tab and ASK him about it, or get second opinions from other people on the Wiki (for now, that last point is not yet a fact, but bear with me...)
I mean: here we have this wonderful messageboard, with people of all walks of life, with all different opiniions, but with one thing in common.
That makes a knowledge-base of sorts. But it's flawed. Posts, sometimes wonderfully original, detailed, outrageous food for thought (for instance: Karov's views, ideas re: terraforming...) are submitted, discussed... To eventually dissappear from view, due to the nature of how messageboards function. If you don't keep adding answers to a subject, it slowly 'sinks' out of view...
And that's a shame.
But now we've got a Wiki. If done right, that could change everything.
But it will take time and some non-trivial effort.
When I said there was one problem with the from-scratch Wiki thing, I lied, there are two problems.
Wiki's have a somewhat higher treshold re: submitting things.
At first, it looks so daunting, you either have a blank sheet, *or* an already elaborate subject in front of you. One has to feel really committed to take the step to, yes, add your own stuff there. There's no big shiny "answer" button, for starters. There's no big "new topic" button, either.
Then, assuming that doesn't scare you off, and you feel brave enough to figure out how to actually add something, you enter a non-GUI text-editor environment, with weird stuff like having to type [[internal link here]] instead of clicking icons that do the formatting for you..
And I think that's a pity.
The New Mars community *deserves* a flourishing Wiki knowledge/way of life base.
So how do we get there?
I ask this, because it clearly isn't taking off in a major way. I mainly start empty 'coathangers' (stubs, in wikinese,) in the hope other people fill them in. Because I had this depressing "there's already better worded stuff out there" feeling, John is doing some great work (check it out, really check it out, whoever is following this thread) Bill adds stuff, clearly also with a underlying idea about the Wiki...
But that's *not* enough. We need more people.
And, I think, we need to "de-Wikify" this wiki. It does not have to be all tech stuff, you know, it does not have to be all 'given' articles, one can start discussions in a wiki, too.
Consider this, all ye lurkers : you can see the Wiki as your website! You can post whatever you're interested in, complete with pictures, and get some good feedback to boot! And you don't have to worry about setting the thing up, it's already there, if you have problems, there's bound to be a helping hand, coming from someone you know, a fellow New Mars enthousiast.
So, it can be a very rewarding experience, if you try...
But how?
How can we lure people? How can we lower the treshold?
I did some half-*ss*d copy and pasteing of the help pages from the official Wiki, but that's not enough.
Some suggestions:
*We need to write a GOOD manual. A short one, a How-to for absolute beginners, with links for more advanced features for the ones willing to get deeper into this.
*A prominent helppage, with FAQ. that help page begins with: "click 'edit' to enter your question" or something like that.
*there are some tools that makes entering text in wiki's more user-friendly. For example, the FireFox browser has an extension called 'wikipedia' that adds a toolbar, a bit like in a 'real' wordprocessor, so you can point-and-click formatting stuff etc. So you don't have to learn about those formating things, initially. I'm sure there are tools for other browsers etc.
*Expanding the scope on the New Mars Wiki, transfer some stuff from the msgboard that's non-tech, like the "good books you've read entries, poems, stories, Cindy's "new discoveries" etc.
*....
I said I was going to ramble, heh. But I'd like some second opiniions on this.

Great posts Rxke. These are my thoughts exactly. We want a wiki that is uniquely new mars. Thus what we right should give a uniquely new mars feel. Thus when we write a subject we should try to think about the general consensus developed here from the posts and incorporate that in the wiki. Try to think of relevant posts we made on the subject and link the wiki to those posts. The wiki as Rxke’s says provides a way to keep our posts from falling to oblivion. It allows us to sumerize what we learn from our discussions and keep that knowledge for later reference.
I also agree, about what Rxke says, “think about it as your own website that you don’t have to set up. I have done my own websites before and I am a busy student. I cannot by myself make them very complete but working as a team a much better product can be produced.

As for starting discussions, for every topic we do on the wiki there is a discussion tab. We should use this to, ask questions, make notes of things we can change, make notes about where there can be potential disagreement. For a larger discussion we should say here are some issues we should discuss and provide a link to a thread there. I say this because if the discussion tab becomes too large it might be slightly unwieldy.

I really think we have a knowledge base here that can present original factual material and for more information we can always link to external pages.

edit: We should have two links on the top of the message boards to the wiki. One linke should take us to the [URL=http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page]main page[/URL]. The other link should take us to recent changes[/URL].

Rxke · 2005-08-01 16:46:03

good point re: discussion staying on the New Mars messageboards.

That's probably the best of both worlds!

I think different views can be presented at the Wiki, I mean: where ever have you seen such friendly disagreeing than on this very board?

One thing I forgot in my ramble: the organisation of the Wiki. Already now the frontpage is kind of full, and there are only links to a couple of subjects .
Maybe structure it as New Mars messageboard itself?

Frontpage: short intro about what it's meant to be, then list of subjects, "human missions," "intterplanetary travel," ... and those links link themself to subsections, that link to topics?

So a 99% identical setup like the messageboard?

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 16:53:43

good point re: discussion staying on the New Mars messageboards.
That's probably the best of both worlds!
I think different views can be presented at the Wiki, I mean: where ever have you seen such friendly disagreeing than on this very board?

One thing I forgot in my ramble: the organisation of the Wiki. Already now the frontpage is kind of full, and there are only links to a couple of subjects .
Maybe structure it as New Mars messageboard itself?
Frontpage: short intro about what it's meant to be, then list of subjects, "human missions," "intterplanetary travel," ... and those links link themself to subsections, that link to topics?
So a 99% identical setup like the messageboard?

I agree ideally it should start with the most general stuff and work towards more specific details. For instance on the main page I have a link to orbital mechanics and another link to “the fundamentals of space explorations”. The fundamentals is clearly more general but I left the orbital mechanics link on the main page because there isn’t that much on the main page yet. I expect the main page to be continuously revised.

Rxke · 2005-08-01 17:00:39

I think I'm going to experiment a bit with it, see how it looks (sandbox mode, don't worry, I won't break stuff )

I think I've found a rather 'newbie-friendly' way to add content in a structured way. Have to experiment a bit, though, and it's 1 AM already, sigh...

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 17:10:37

I think different views can be presented at the Wiki, I mean: where ever have you seen such friendly disagreeing than on this very board?

I agree that there is room for different views but we should try to present views as such and not write in too authoritative a fashion. So perhaps assigning a name to the view, “We shall call this school of though ‘…’”. We should also try to give some information about what the consensuses seems to be between the different views. I worry that my writings may at times reflect my biases too much.

For instance in my writings here:
http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/T … _reach_LEO

here are many vehicles in use that deliver people or goods to LEO, including: Progress, Soyuz, Sea Launch and the space shuttle. These vehicles fill a range of roles from, delivering space probes and military spy satellites to earh orbit as well as delivering people to the international space station (ISS) and supplies to the international space station. However, most of these vehicles are small or medium lift and do not deliver sufficient mass to LEO to be a practical vehicle to use for a Mars mission.
To allow NASA to once again move beyond LEO as they were able to do when the Saturn V took them to the Moon, options were investigated that would allow a greater amount of mass to be delivered to LEO (Heavy Lift). The three approaches investigated where the shuttle derived vehicle, the EELV and the clean slate approach.
Shuttle Derived
The shuttle derived approach was chosen because: it would be the fastest approach to develop, it would result in the least layoffs and it can deliver the most mass to LEO. It is the quickest and easiest solution but not necessarily the best solution.
EELV Approach
EELV stand for evolved expendable launch vehicle. When the military realized the space shuttle was not going to meat expectations it chose a different method for delivering military satellites into space. The two lines are the Delta by Boeing and the Atlas by Lockheed Martin. Boeing has showing that the Delta V can be modified to deliver 40-50 MT into LEO without pad modifications and 80MT into space with pad modifications. EELV has the advantage over the shuttle that it uses a higher degree of automation in the factors. This could mean a cheaper more reliable product.
The Clean Slate Approach
The other options explored was the clean slate approach. As the name implies this approach would start a new rocket line. It would be the most expensive option but should yield the best product.

I wonder if I show too much bias towards the EELV. NASA is behind shuttle derived and the plan sounds good so perhaps I should be behind it. Also the majority of the Mars Society is probably behind shuttle derived (Especially Zubrin) so I worry I could do a better job at representing the mars society.

Also in another post I refer zubrin’s ideas as controversial.

http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/Philosophy

Robert Zubrin
Zubrin began publishing his ideas with the formation of the MARS underground which was formed as a consequence of a backlash to the unrealistic approach to mars exploration proposed in the 90 Day Report by NASA. Zubrin, later presented his ideas in the book, “The Case For Mars” and because of the massive response he got in terms of letters and emails as a consequence of the book, the formed the MARS society.
While his ideas for mars missions (Mars Direct) are now incorporated into NASA missions plans (NASA reference mission), some of his interpretations of history (Mars as a New Frontier) remain controversial because of what some see as an American centric interpretation of history. Yet one can not help but wonder what is the lure of a frontier? How does the frontier benefit and hinder progress, in our technology, our social systems and our political institutions?
Robert Zubrin is not the only philosopher to write about progress. On philosopher once compared nature to technology and devised an ethic centered on enhancing that esthetic. A more wellknown philosopher/economist was Malthus. Malthus was the first person to bring the idea of scarcity to the forefront of academic thought. Malthus predicted an ever declining quality of life because of an exponentially growing population and an ever decreasing return in the agricultural yield of the land.

Now I know not all members like all Zubrin’s ideas but does this reflect the consensus of the board or just a few particularly vocal members. Additionally, does the wiki represent just the members of newmars or the members of the mars society. Does calling some of Zubrin’s idea’s controversial fit the "party line". I am doing my best to try to make the wiki a wiki for new mars, but if I am the only writing I worry it will be tainted too much by my thoughts and ideas and not be a good representation of the thoughts and ideas of the people at newmars and perhaps the mars society.

Rxke · 2005-08-01 17:27:49

Heh, no worries, Josh!

I read those entries, and had to grin imagining the reactions of some people...
But that's the whoole point of the wiki, if one is vocal at the boards, they can be vocal at the wiki, too. I mean, if you have a *real* standpoint, what better way than to elaborate on it at the wiki instead of the board (over and over again)
i can see people like GCNRevenger, RobertDyck, and some others, slowly synthesizing their views in a coherent way, blow by blow etc... and submit that at the Wiki, then in discussions, instead of typing it all again, simmply refer to the wiki, adding to that wiki when new stuff comes up in diuscussions etc.

Maybe it is GOOD to have your 'opinionated' stuff up there, in order to lure people to add their views...

I think some way of subsectioning of subjects where there's place for 'opinionated' essays entries is a good thing. For instance article about EELV, at bottom links to "essay by GCNRevenger on EELV" etc.

clark · 2005-08-01 17:37:53

As a resident anti-Zubrinite, I think your presentation is objective and fair. I believe that as long as you present the information in an objective manner, such as not saying things like, "everyone agrees who knows anything" is fine.

You are not responsible for presenting the counter-arguments, only for suggesting that not everyone agrees.

However, you may wish to explain some of the counter arguments, and what the further explanation from a pro-Zubrin point of view has to say on the subject.

Such as, "Some think that the fronteir example does not apply, for X,Y, and Z reasons."

You then show the counter point of view that demonstrate how these concerns have been addressed, or are understood within the larger framework of the exsisting theories.

Just a suggestion, and I refuse to get involved at this point.

John Creighton · 2005-08-01 17:46:09

Maybe it is GOOD to have your 'opinionated' stuff up there, in order to lure people to add their views...
I think some way of subsectioning of subjects where there's place for 'opinionated' essays entries is a good thing. For instance article about EELV, at bottom links to "essay by GCNRevenger on EELV" etc.

That is a very good point. I do think there is room for people to do there on articles on the wiki provided they are appropriately tiled. For example as you say: “GCNRevenger on EELV”. Perhaps, for such a section, there would be a subsection, called, “Main article by GCNRevenger”, and another section called, “summery of reacatio”. Then minor discussion can occur in the discussion tab and more extensive discussion can occur on the boards.

Rxke · 2005-08-01 17:55:08

Clark, I guess stuff like Zubrin's Mars Direct page will evolve in subsections like:
1. The man, The plan
3. spinoff plans (e.g. live off the land implementations etc.)
2. counter points
3. ....

it's all very embryonic, for now, but I guess most interesting topics will grow considerably, in time, all with their own OBJECTIVE summaries about the subject, and then more elaborate explanations, critiques etc...

BTW: i sketchily added an alternative mainpage, it's linked from the current mainpage, as some kind of comment. Have a look please, and comments re: format, needed main 'chapters' etc are really needed.

I do think it's the way to go eventually, with a welcome message, a bit of beautification of course (and Haiku or something, shortish on the mainpage, heh)

clark · 2005-08-01 18:06:24

By far the most famous writer of science fiction is author Clark.

Just as a point of clarification... please tell me you are referring to Arthur C. Clarke on the Fiction page.

If not, please change this. The gods will strike me dead for your hubris.

Besides, everyone knows when it comes to *Mars*, there can be no other than Ray Bradbury.

He is the singular reason that I found Mars. I would not have looked for that red star in the evening sky unless he had pointed.

Thanks.

Rxke · 2005-08-01 18:19:17

Hint: there's a tab at the top of that entry, it says 'edit this page'

I suggest you click it ! (I know you don't want to get involved, but, truly, instead of posting that here, why didn't you do it THERE?)

BTW: I have a request for your usergroup: come up with a series of haikus or shortish poems, suitable for all the subsections on the board: 'human missions, interplanetary transportation, planetary transportation,' etc...

like: 'planetary transportation':

Plodding through Red Sands
Fuel cells broke down on Us
Taste of flint-gritting our teeth

Disclaimer: it's past 2 AM and I'm having a laugh.

clark · 2005-08-01 18:24:27

Careful what you ask for.

I'm a hack, so I take jobs on spec.

You'ze tells me whats you wants, and I will gets it to ya's.

I will present it to the group and see if there are any takers. If not, I'll see what the 'ol muse can muster.

"Between dawn and dusk,
a voice speaks in lonely night.
Red star, my lover."

BWhite · 2005-08-01 21:50:44

Hey clark, lets do some Mars fiction book reviews.

KSR, Bova, White Mars, Rainbow Mars, Black Mars (ooops I haven't written that one yet - - its the alt-history where Hitler wins WW2 and von Braun watches Mars One launch from Somalia in 1979)

and of course, Bradbury.

clark · 2005-08-01 21:59:36

Black Mars

Bradbury beat you to it. Short story. On the Other Foot (Illustrated Man).

African American's start a new life on Mars. It is a stellar short story set on Mars. It just refrences Mars, but the man is a genuis.

The first rocket of whites lands on Mars after the african americans have colonized Mars, asking for aslyum. The colonists are about to lynch them, but end up forgiving them for all the sufferings after learning that all the old areas where they grew up were destroyed by the whites.

Go ahead, throw something else out.

BWhite · 2005-08-01 22:17:23

Actually, I have read that story.

clark · 2005-08-01 22:18:09

How about the one with the missionaries who come to save the souls of Martians, only to find that they have no sin?

John Creighton · 2005-08-02 00:21:18

As a resident anti-Zubrinite, I think your presentation is objective and fair. I believe that as long as you present the information in an objective manner, such as not saying things like, "everyone agrees who knows anything" is fine.

thank you

You are not responsible for presenting the counter-arguments, only for suggesting that not everyone agrees.
However, you may wish to explain some of the counter arguments, and what the further explanation from a pro-Zubrin point of view has to say on the subject.
Such as, "Some think that the fronteir example does not apply, for X,Y, and Z reasons."

Thinking back to the very first new mars message board (2 message boards ago lol). I remember you presenting historical criticism to the Zurbrin, mars as a frontier philosophy. History is not my strong point especially American history so my ability to address this is limited. However, time permitting and if no one else makes an effort maybe I'll at least start the initiative.

It seems that the discussion about Mars as a Frontier to reinvigorate human creative has died once Alexander Shepard left the boards as it left you with know one to debate these issues with. A wonder how Alexander Sheapards political views evolved as he grew older. It would be nice for him to make a visit sometime.

Just a suggestion, and I refuse to get involved at this point.

I know I have put a fair bit of time into it the last few days but you don't need to think of it as a commitment. People can visit, edit things they don't like or link to them to debate or discuss on these boards. Perhaps think of it like the message boards as something you visit and contribute to and if you end up really liking it you can "get involved".

BTW you did an excellent job at editing the section about science fiction authors. Thank you for the contribution.

idiom · 2005-08-02 01:05:43

I have a lot of spare time, or rather single minded determination, so as soon as I figure out where the wiki is I will happily trawl through all the really ancient topics.

Alternativley I could start a thread of 'recyled wiki entries' and somebody else can put them in. I do wish Astronautix was on a wiki we could flog. Save a lot of time that would.

Also we need a biography section to seperate people from their main works. Like Zubrin should have his birthday, pioneered mars direct(link), founded the mars society(link), co-founder pioneer-rocketplane(link).

BTW. who is Ray Bradbury? Is he like KSR or Clarke?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-07-31 15:57:49

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#77 2005-07-31 18:23:50

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#78 2005-08-01 13:57:57

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#79 2005-08-01 15:22:25

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#80 2005-08-01 15:24:39

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#81 2005-08-01 15:39:38

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#82 2005-08-01 16:18:59

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#83 2005-08-01 16:36:01

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#84 2005-08-01 16:46:03

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#85 2005-08-01 16:53:43

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#86 2005-08-01 17:00:39

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#87 2005-08-01 17:10:37

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#88 2005-08-01 17:27:49

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#89 2005-08-01 17:37:53

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#90 2005-08-01 17:46:09

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#91 2005-08-01 17:55:08

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#92 2005-08-01 18:06:24

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#93 2005-08-01 18:19:17

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#94 2005-08-01 18:24:27

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#95 2005-08-01 21:50:44

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#96 2005-08-01 21:59:36

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#97 2005-08-01 22:17:23

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#98 2005-08-01 22:18:09

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#99 2005-08-02 00:21:18

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

#100 2005-08-02 01:05:43

Re: WIKI: We now have a useable wiki...

Board footer