Fountain Pen Wiki

[Arkamas]

I had the thought of how useful the knowledge of the good citizens of this forum could be in a fountain pen wiki. I did a search and sure enough, one does exist, but it seems it was only begun and then abandoned. But there could be a lot of really interesting, organized information to be found if something like this were it done seriously. Obviously backgrounds on pens, as well as histories of companies, notable people from the FP world, techniques and materials used, filling systems, etc, etc, etc, etc. Ideas to me seem endless, and it would be a great way to catalog the various histories of fountain pens.

Thoughts?

Edited June 26, 2017 by Arkamas

[Bo Bo Olson]

There is too much info for Wiki......

Here is where the info is.

[BillH]

There is too much info for Wiki......

Here is where the info is.

 

 

No need to reinvent the wheel. I agree with Bo Bo, FPN is much better. And as Ghost Plane said, we have cookies.

[Sandy1]

Hi,

 

With the best intentions and polite manners, that would be akin to Jack Russell terriers trying to herd cats. There are just too many variables, which in itself makes FP use interesting to those who are interested.

 

Perhaps the single site closest to a Wiki thingy would be http://richardspens.com, which was meticulously researched (empirical/first-hand), constructed and continues to be updated by the renowned Richard Binder. A gift that keeps giving.

 

Bye,

S1

Edited June 27, 2017 by Sandy1

[Bo Bo Olson]

Sandy is right!

One can easily spend three days on Richards site.

[Arkamas]

Perhaps the single site closest to a Wiki thingy would be http://richardspens.com, which was meticulously researched (empirical/first-hand), constructed and continues to be updated by the renowned Richard Binder. A gift that keeps giving.

 

Ah, well then disregard this post. Richard Binder seems to have it basically covered from what I've seen of the site.

[Sandy1]

 

Ah, well then disregard this post. Richard Binder seems to have it basically covered from what I've seen of the site.

 

 

Hi,

 

It seems to me that there are 'foundation' sites, then there are those that address fleeting situations and personal experiences.

 

FPN is a juggling juggernaut, combining pinned Topics (intended to be 'authoritative') with fast-moving ephemera, which can both amuse and confuse.

 

With the iNet search engines, we have the pleasure of assembling our individual FP Wiki.

 

Bye,

S1

 

__ __

 

(Musing : As inks and papers change over time, I wonder how many of my ~138 Ink Reviews are still valid.)

Edited June 27, 2017 by Sandy1

[PaperDarts]

Sandy1, your reviews are the first ones I check out when I want to try an ink!! You are practically an inkWiki all by yourself.

[catbert]

Some fountain pen content on the Stationery Wiki, though the emphasis seems to be documenting the Pen Addict podcast.

[Sandy1]

Sandy1, your reviews are the first ones I check out when I want to try an ink!! You are practically an inkWiki all by yourself.

 

 

Hi,

 

I am flattered that you hold my contributions in such high regard.

 

* blushing *

 

Bye,

S1

[sciumbasci]

This one is good enough http://fountainpen.it/Pagina_principale/en

[Drone]

Ah, well then disregard this post. Richard Binder seems to have it basically covered from what I've seen of the site.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree Arkmas:

 

While I am thankful for Richard Binder's Reference site, it does have major issues that a properly-run open Wiki does not have. As they say:

 

The wealth of information on one man's Web site...

 

1) ...will never harbor more than one man's breadth of knowledge.

 

2) ...may very well live and die with that one man.

 

3) ...is just one man's opinion, no debate or consensus, take it or leave it.

 

4) ...is seen only as one man wants you to see it, or not see it.

 

5) ...may be costly.

 

Don't be so quick to confuse a site like that owned by Mr. Binder with the power of a vibrant open Wiki.

 

But without openness, commitment, and most important a Community, a Wiki is worse than nothing. Perhaps one in a thousand Wikis started - actually live.

 

Regards, David

Edited June 29, 2017 by Drone

[Arkamas]

Well you're the first to share my initial thoughts before that post, Drone. As you said though, a wiki won't happen if there is no interest. Richard's site is great but it's more of a blog, and is lacking. FPN is a great and abundant source of knowledge, yes, but it's a community, not an organized, cataloged reference point. Some say too much information, but that's the point of creating a wiki. It's not something that should be expected to be fully fleshed out overnight. I still stand by my point that a fp wiki has a great deal of potential, but if no one is willing or dismissal is quick, then it won't happen, thus Richard's site or any like it are the next closest thing from what I can tell.

[Sandy1]

...

Edited June 29, 2017 by Sandy1

[Maurizio]

A wiki's not necessary. If it helps, you can gain access to the broad knowledge and experience housed on the FPN site by doing a Google search and adding "FPN" at the end of the search term. This will usually result in the retrieval of information from the FPN site at the top of your search results.

 

Examples: "Japanese wood [or wooden] fountain pens fpn"

 

"best blue fountain pen ink fpn"

 

Try it and see what you find.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Maurizio

[Arkamas]

...

 

I'm not looking to get passionately argumentative over an idea some obviously disagree with here. I acknowledge your points.

[Sandy1]

 

I'm not looking to get passionately argumentative over an idea some obviously disagree with here. I acknowledge your points.

 

 

Hi,

 

Not just on FPN, I try my best not to disparage the efforts of others.

 

I have been proven wrong all too often, and have the scars attesting to that, but that has never dampened my enthusiasm and curiosity - let's give it another go mate.

 

Then again, how much too much is too much?

 

The Wiki on iron-gall inks is impressive, and to me is roughly where the bar resides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_gall_ink

 

As such, I reckon that one needs to lower the bar or adopt the Community model. (e.g Goulet Pens, with the Beatific Ruth and indefatigable Brian.)

>> My Ink Reviews greatly benefit from the replies of other Members, who have added more context / texture / experience than my efforts. I like to think that I/We are sowing seeds so others can harvest the crop. (ITRW I've planted more gardens than I've eaten from.)

 

Sharing is important. How we do it is less important:

>> A White Tie silver service dinner or a rum lot laughing, leaning against the kitchen counters, nibbling from each others plates filled from the feast before them. Go ahead - tempt me with an oyster - maybe there be a pearl within.

 

Wheee

 

Bye,

S1

 

__ __

 

 

Transcribed from Moby Dick:

 

 

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN_2012/Ink%20Review%20-%20Diamine%20Syrah/e51c0d6f.jpg

Edited June 30, 2017 by Sandy1

[Drone]

Well you're the first to share my initial thoughts before that post, Drone. As you said though, a wiki won't happen if there is no interest. Richard's site is great but it's more of a blog, and is lacking. FPN is a great and abundant source of knowledge, yes, but it's a community, not an organized, cataloged reference point. Some say too much information, but that's the point of creating a wiki. It's not something that should be expected to be fully fleshed out overnight. I still stand by my point that a fp wiki has a great deal of potential, but if no one is willing or dismissal is quick, then it won't happen, thus Richard's site or any like it are the next closest thing from what I can tell.

 

I agree, a FP Wiki would be welcome. There's a LOT of information stored here on the FPN, but it is a pain to search, and the way images must be stored off-forum once a user reaches a cap makes images unreliable over time. A Wiki is browsable by topic, like a library. Searching a forum is like slipping a question on a piece of paper to a Librarian under the library door, and hoping for the best.

 

But as you said, the key is support and the Community to make the Wiki a living thing. In my opinion, the Wiki has a better chance if it is connected to an existing online FP resource, like the FPN Another great advantage of linking the FP Wiki (FPW) to the FPN is that where-appropriate, Wiki entries would just link right over to related Forum posts and vice-versa. The two become an inter-twined resource if you will. But there's still the problem of image storage. However I'm optimistic; the cost of connected storage these days is so low (and falling), eventually the storage problem should go away.

 

As mentioned in this thread, trying to organize the galaxy of information about Fountain Pens is going to be like herding cats. I think Richard Binder realized this and settled on what is probably the best way to handle it - alphabetically. So if I were to start a FP Wiki, I'd probably try a similar approach. So the Wiki might look something like Mr. Binder's Reference, but it would be: open, extensible, user-supported, and essentially future-proof. All things Mr. Binder's site are not.

 

Regards, David

Edited June 30, 2017 by Drone

[Sandy1]

...

 

still more curious than an owl

 

...

Edited June 30, 2017 by Sandy1

[Arkamas]

 

Another great advantage of linking the FP Wiki (FPW) to the FPN is that where-appropriate, Wiki entries would just link right over to related Forum posts and vice-versa. The two become an inter-twined resource if you will. But there's still the problem of image storage. However I'm optimistic; the cost of connected storage these days is so low (and falling), eventually the storage problem should go away.

 

That's actually a really interesting thought. FPN is the biggest source of general knowledge I know of, and a FPN community-supplemented wiki alongside it rather than just separate sounds even better.