Hopefully, we will include Glider Instincts and Behavior. It would certainly make the lives of the pet gliders (and ours) so much easier if we understood why they do some of the things they do. This could include their vocalizations, body language, etc.

This would definitely be an integeral part of a gliderpedia. I reckon it would be very interesting to get some comparisons of glider behaviour between wild, captive but not pet and pet sugar gliders. A lot of effort would be needed to collaborate this but I reckon it could be done, especially with at least two Aussies here that can try an obtain some more wild glider information.

Cheers Ko

Start writing folks! Just because the wiki isnt online yet doesnt mean we cant start submitting material. They articles sont have to be perfect either. As you know, a wiki changes daily. You can go back and edit it very much like a forum post. So we need to just get all of these topics and articles started for the most part. I dont know if Eric has shared the current location of the "unpublished" wiki. Perhaps he should and we can get started.

Eric - if you haven't already - share the site! Cant wait to see it!!!

Kazko, you're jumping the gun.

Hmmm, Eric, you told me the gliderpedia started before the so-called wiki, but do you envision the self-generating content to be any different? Your comment about jumping the gun sounds like you envision the rules of engagement in content to be less egalitarian than a common wiki. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, in your post "Getting Started: where to begin" you seem to imply this is just a technical subject on how to create pages and links. If that is the case, how is anyone jumping any guns unless you have a content-vetting criteria in mind? Is there a technical problem or are you wrestling with how to "control the quality' of content?

If gliderpedia is going to be edited and vetted like a magazine that has an editor, thepeople being solicited for articles should know that. If it's not they should know that too. Can you publish the rules of engagment and content or point us to the rules if they have not already been published? I can't find any explicit rules as to how content gets vetted and by whom. I cannot think of another reason, unless it is technical, that anyone would be jumping the gun... Would you please clarify your comment?

Also, if you set the bar too high, there will not be much content. You may be able to use a model where people write articles and you edit them and then post them yourself. That is not the self-publishing, self-generating model, but it may work. But the more steps, the less content. All depends I guess on what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe a statement of what you are trying to accomplish would be a good idea or may I beg your indulgence in repeating that if you have already done so?

At present, I personally get more out of the gossip side of the house where information is full of errors, conjecture, bull and fun. I have my own filter for junk in my head so I can withstand it. But that's better than limited content. It is good to have that choice here.

Any guidance or expectation-setting you can provide us on where this pedia is going would be appreciated.

The comment was made in regard to the software I'm using still having some bugs in it.

I can't think of any wiki community that is egalitarian, or democratic. All the wikis have some sort of method, be it people or what have you, of filtering content. A wiki wiki is simply software, not a dogma. The rules of administration or secondary to the software, and those rules change from site to site, but there is always and administrator that restricts content or deletes things that are not appropriate. The Wikipedia project, for example, has moderators that delete hundreds of articles a day that do not meet their own standards. It is not a democracy style where everyone is equal and must administrate, but more of a republic style where a select few do the administration.

As for guidance or expectation, my original idea was to focus only on information regarding wild sugar gliders, excluding husbandry. Obviously, discussions on how best to care for sugar gliders in one's home is contentious at best, so I thought it would be prudent to simply forgo that and focus on quantitative, versus subjective, information. I envisioned that the gliderpedia could be for someone wanting information on them as animals as opposed to as pets, such as a kid wanting to do a report on them for school, and the forum would be the source for husbandry information.

Obviously that has changed, as consensus could not be achieved on that direction.

Eric, I asked if it was a technical problem or a quality of content issue and it seems you have answered both of my questions thank you.

You know, the answer was hardly intuitive from your comment back in February, but I see it sure put a halt to the thread. I sought to understand so I could figure out if I had the right stuff to make a contribution or ongoing contributions to the gliderpedia.

As to dogma, you of course are in a better position to speak for this site than anyone else so I accept your republic analogy. I guess that's kind of like my mention of an editor anyways...

Based on your recent comments here, you may have to remodel your own expectations if you still seek content on wild gliders. This site seems to attract practioners of captive husbandry, so I don't know where the wild content is coming from or how you connected the dots to expect content on that from this constituency. Is there a "shadow" constituency of experts that I am ignorant of? (attempt at humor). Based only on what is obvious so far, I can envision four possible outcomes (not humor):

1. Lower or change your content expectations
2. Attract willing experts if expert content is needed
3. Generate the content yourself
4. Scuttle the idea altogether

Certainly your posting the way in which you intend to synthesize content, whatever the dogma, could help in its solicitation. And of course, an alignment of content with the constituency may help to generate more content if that indeed is still your intent.

Based on your gudiance so far, I don't think I cut it here. For starters, I do not have the ability to generate content on wild gliders, as I am not an expert on them - nor do I have any bonified sources that can be properly attributed based on your guidelines. Your crucible of (dis)proof is also a bar far too high for me to jump over regarding captive diet despite my suggestions of different approaches. Based on these observations, I think I will slink back to to the anectdotal, unattributed and decidedly less intellectual environs of this site - that is the gossip content. But I do appreciate your patience in covering this ground which has helped me to decide how to participate on this site.

Eric, this is the best glider site out there. Gail and I get good information here and it is a joy to share ideas here. Without being facetious, it is perfect with the gossip, photos, stories and no gliderpedia. You have accomplished a lot and should be proud.

The desire for information about sugar gliders as wildlife is from having various schools link to the Gliderpedia as part of homework assignments.

As for content providers, I've never had any expectation that it would be anyone other than myself adding content. It's nice to have people contribute, but not something that I will expect, need, or require.

At this point in time, the criteria for adding content is very simple. One does not have to be an expert in any field to contribute, but expert or authoritative sources should be used, or at least that's the ultimate goal. This is the same requirement 5th graders have when doing a social studies project.

None of this is written in stone, and is subject to change as consensus changes. I also think that having standards for content is a positive attribute, as it is so easy for people to create a website on the internet and simply slap any information they want on it under a false pretense of authority.

(crafted strictly to elicit chuckles so don't take this too seriously please)...

Oh thank goodness Eric. Now we know the intellectual effort is akin to a 5th grade social studies assignment. That's such a relief because that being the case, you should have no problem gleaning lots of content from aspiring 10-year-olds worldwide.

I hope they have better luck than I did in sourcing all of the rich petaurus breviceps content that's hiding out there. I sure can't find it - but then prepubescent children these days could very well be a lot smarter than me - especially when it comes to uncovering obscure details on the lives of these exotic creatures. I'm sure the fact that they watch a lot of spongebob squarepants and fairly odd parents puts them on a whole different intellectual plane of existence - so of course how to ply the depths of the internet, libraries, and medical journals is natually a part of that higher intellect.

I was worried there for a minute that sourcing worthy content, making sure it is attributable, and packaging it represented a more involved unertaking. Clearly based on the level of intellect you say it requires, the gliderpedia is on the verge of brimming with valuable and attributable content.

Personally, I am humbled. Despite the use of a dozens of search engines, random site searches, using a huge taxonomy of key words I can think of, there is very little attributable content I have been able to find that we have not already discovered. And I've read the books that are commonly available to laypersons. I am completely ignorant of how to tap the apparently subterranean knowledge base on gliders that 10-year-olds have access to. I therefore will yeild to the 5th graders in the fervid hope they fair better than me.

[hope you guys enjoyed this cuz I am laughing my head off]