Preparing content for a wiki

Now that the new website is up, it might be a good time to think about starting a wiki. I think it would probably be best to have it on but without any link to it until it has enough content, but we would have to ask super3/TheWildHorse about that. For now, we can at least start thinking about what type of content we would like to have on it in the future.

There is already a wiki on github but it is very outdated and still called “ppcoin”, so I think it would be better to start from scratch. We can move over any relevant information to the new wiki.

Previous attempts to start a wiki haven’t really taken off, so I have decided to post a possible outline of what pages we could start with. If you can say what parts you agree or disagree with then we can start to get an idea of what people want and hopefully be successful this time. Lots of other coins have decent wikis so I think Peercoin deserves one too.


Main page: Welcome to the Peercoin wiki etc…nicely presented links to everything someone might want to know about Peercoin.

Peercoin: A brief overview of the basics, including history, proof of stake + proof of work, economics, and community.

Beginners’ guide: Available software and how to install, how to obtain peercoins, minting guide, mining guide. There might be overlap here with the website, but people will expect to see it in a wiki so it needs to be here, even if it just repeats info from website or links to it.

Frequently asked questions: Can take info from website and old wiki FAQ page.

Proof of Stake: This is where the wiki can really shine in my opinion. This forum is arguably one of the only places that serious discussion of proof of stake has occurred. There is a lot of info that can be summarized and presented nicely on the wiki instead of sprawled across the forum. When people research proof of stake it would be great if they can find our wiki instead of having history rewritten by other coins.

Myths: Take info from pillow’s thread if pillow agrees. Can be similar to the bitcoin wiki myths page.

Getting involved: How to contribute to the Peercoin community (post on the forums, develop, market, contact merchants/exchanges for adoption, submit a proposal to the marketing fund, donate on peer4commit, improve the wiki.)

List of services: A list of services that exist within the Peercoin ecosystem…merchants, exchanges, block explorers, tools etc.

Developer Documentation: Can link to Bitcoin info where necessary to prevent some work, and then just have the Peercoin-specific details where things differ.


By this stage, the wiki should be good enough to justify its own existence and can be made visible on the homepage. Then we can possibly work on specific pages explaining individual projects such as Peerbox, Peer4commit, Peerunity, and Peershares.


I agree. I also think its a good idea.

For a long time I was reluctant to push out the myth thread to people, being a little bit worried that the content hadn’t not properly vetted. Well as it turns out, no-one seem to have time (or interest, but mostly time I think) to do it.

I’m confident that the content in the thread isn’t totally crazy wrong, so I’m beginning to play with this idea of instead pushing the thread out there and have the critiques trolling it instead. If they find anything wrong with the myth’s, the criticized myth could then be discussed more thoroughly. That way they trolls could start working for us. For free.

I say, push the myth’s up to the wiki and let’s take it from there. On a wiki the content can be easily changed and history diffed. That’s perfect for discussing myth’s I think.

Thanks pillow, I think that is a good approach.

On a side note, it just occurred to me that maybe the reason previous wiki attempts have failed is that not many people here have much experience with editing wikis. Is this true? I don’t have a huge amount of experience either, but it’s really not that hard. It is something that everyone can contribute to.

Assuming we use MediaWiki, there are just a few basic things to learn about editing/formatting etc. Then we just need people to find information that they think is important and put it in the wiki. It doesn’t really need to be referenced or anything like wikipedia (apart from maybe a few links to threads.)

Some technical information may require input from developers if it has not already explained somewhere, but the bulk of info can be written by non-developers using the forums as sources.

Then a couple of dedicated people are needed to make everything consistent and organized, but the average editor shouldn’t have to worry about this.

If it’s helpful, I’m more than willing to initiate a transfer of,, and over to whowever would like to take point on creating it.

I’ll happily help create content as a contributor, but with the other projects I am involved in, I just don’t have any time to put aside to taking a larger role :confused:

@river I would be happy to contribute to the wiki.

I was wondering why we don’t have one about 4-5 months ago. My experience with editing and creating wiki pages is not existent but I think it’s just pseudo code in most cases?

Just let me know.

[quote=“Ben, post:4, topic:2921”]If it’s helpful, I’m more than willing to initiate a transfer of,, and over to whowever would like to take point on creating it.

I’ll happily help create content as a contributor, but with the other projects I am involved in, I just don’t have any time to put aside to taking a larger role :/[/quote]

Ben, do you guys have a wiki for NuBits coming? I was just wondering if anything from that could be used to help speed up the process with this. If not, don’t worry about it.

No that we’ve released, it’s on the list. We have lots of content all over the place, so the challenge is bringing it together.

We can definitely talk about any overlap (like APIs or commands).

@Ben, I think I’ll send a PM to TheWildHorse and super3 to get their opinions on whether we could have a The other domains could point there. If this doesn’t work out then we’ll have to wait and see if someone else will set it up. I’m in a similar position… willing to contribute content but not set it up and run it :wink:

@willywithcoinnode, thanks for the offer. Yes there isn’t too much to learn:
We could also have a system where people who really don’t want to edit can post what changes they want on the forum, and someone else could make the edit for them.

With my vacation/relaxation period finishing on Monday, I will be available for the technical side of things if needed.

I would not recommend a wiki, unless there is a process for maintaining it. Look at how out of date the Bitcoin wiki is.

It would be easy enough to have a system on peer4commit where people are tipped for editing. The only slight difficulty would be determining how important each edit is. It could probably be based on word count, and in the case of minor edits, a certain number of them could be required to reach a threshold before receiving a tip.

But to be honest, I would prefer to try it first without any incentive. We need somewhere to put all the information that is almost common knowledge here on the forum, but not written anywhere more accessible. Since the website is meant only for the most important information, a wiki would be perfect for this.

To prevent it becoming like the Bitcoin wiki, we can start with only a dozen or so pages like I outlined in the original post. Access to editing can be limited to forum members to keep it under control. The community has also grown a lot since the last time we tried. Even if it does become outdated over time, I think it would still be useful. I have learnt quite a bit from the Bitcoin wiki that I wouldn’t know if it didn’t exist at all…

Same for me.

Just as a reminder to anyone who may be interested in creating a wiki: you could always submit a proposal to the marketing fund that, if successful, could help towards hosting costs etc.

i have been having a discussion with super3 regarding something like a peercoin e-book manual - i decided to mention this here as this thread is still relatively fresh and it seems like it would get much the same attention

i would say that the OP seems to have at least a good road map for a general documentation project whether that be in form of a wiki or whetever - the particular e-book we have been discussing falls into the last category “Developer Documentation” but i propose here that this is a good jumping-off point for the inception of a comprehensive documentation project

i would also agree with super3 that a wiki is probably not the best format for most of the topics outlined by the OP - many of them being canonical and so probably should not be world editable - any comprehensive wiki should have many of its pages locked - some oversight is always needed for a wiki or it will inevitably be spammed and/or destroyed - or worst that some subtle but insidious lies can creep in under the radar

the most important concern regarding documentation is for there to be a canonical source of reliable information for the critical issues (like the main website) where users can expect to find nothing “mythical” - links from an official site to user-edited content should always have be accompanied by a disclaimer indication “this wiki/forum is not moderated and is not guaranteed to contain 100% factual information” - regarding a venue for “user-edited content” or discussions this forum serves that function quite well, does it not? - so the only argument i see for wiki is that “the other coins have one” - if the pertinent information is already available but dispersed as ben says then consolidation surely should be a concern

imho the proper place for most of these topics are on the main website - this is the obvious place most users will begin (quite commonly via a link from wikipedia or search engine) - many of these topic are already covered there, albeit tersely - i would suggest simply elaborating on these topics for which reliably correct information should be guaranteed and link to the wiki if one is desired for other topics where user-supplied content is desired and acceptable without rigorous oversight - and link to other more detailed documentation such as the “Beginner’s Guide” and the eBook proposed above which is proposed as the “Developer Documentation” which also would be mostly canonical and its compilation should be at least overseen

The reason I like wiki format is that after two years developemnt Peercoin is still growing. Changes big and small happen often. For example the nothing-at-stake allegation is now totally irrelevant with the new changes made by sigmike. These changes are best put in by the community members when they happen to have time, instead of by one designated person who might update the page once three months. I am a fan of picking up well-said answers in a forum and adding to the FAQ. Wiki allows many people to do that together.
I think we could only allow peercointalk user who has +10 or more scores to modify the wiki, if they open an account on the wiki site, so not any random person can edit.

btw - how does one get ‘karma’ on this forum ? - ive made 8 posts and started one thread but still have 0 karma

When someone really likes your post they click applaud and you get a karma point.

ok just noticing that you have acquired +27 karma from over 800 posts - perhaps it is setting bar a bit high at +10 - which is actually a good idea as long as there are enough +10s out there willing to contribute

10 was just an example number. I think the karma level need to vote on peer4commit fund is 5. So I think allowing for editing should need no more than that.