You must log in to edit PetroWiki. Help with editing

Content of PetroWiki is intended for personal use only and to supplement, not replace, engineering judgment. SPE disclaims any and all liability for your use of such content. More information


Help:Champion guidelines

PetroWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Champions have a crucial role in PetroWiki. SPE has established moderation for PetroWiki because we want to extend our reputation for technical excellence to PetroWiki, by ensuring that contributions are technically sound. Every page has a clear disclaimer about the need to apply sound engineering judgment to all information found in the wiki.

Overview

SPE wants users to be confident the information they find in PetroWiki is credible and represents a reasonable technical approach they can evaluate for application to their specific situation. While we want PetroWiki to be a reliable resource, we also recognize that members from across the industry have experience that may be valuable. Part of SPE's goal in creating PetroWiki is to build a collective resource that reflects the experience of many people working in numerous reservoirs in hundreds of countries. So as a champion, you will need to walk the line between making sure the information is technically sound and not discouraging possible editors because your standards are too high. It is a challenging balance, and SPE appreciates your willingness to help us achieve it.

Below are some of the challenges that you may need to address. SPE staff are willing to help wherever there are questions, and we've set up a mechanism to allow page champions to communicate with each other about questions on approach. As you identify additional challenges to add to this guidance, please communicate them to staff so that they can be shared with all champions. petrowiki(at)spe.org

Differing approaches

Within our industry, there are issues about which there are two or more technically sound, but divergent, points of view. To the extent that both are recognized as technically sound, SPE wants to represent both within PetroWiki. While a dispute resolution process exists, it is better to avoid such disputes by presenting valid alternatives where they exist. This may not always be easy for a champion who comes from one of the schools of thought, but especially with members of the general public able to view content, there is value in showing that there may be more than one approach to doing something.

Important considerations

Many contributors are likely to label things as a "best practice" or "recommended practice." Because these terms mean different things to different groups, SPE believes it is important to avoid these terms wherever possible. In the case of an API RP document, clearly the term recommended practice is appropriate and has the necessary context. It will be challenging in some cases to word content so that it is clear we are describing a practice that is typically used or has proven appropriate for certain situations. SPE staff are willing to help with wordsmithing when needed. But it will be important to remember that the term "best practice" can have farĀ­ reaching implications and is best avoided whenever possible.

Papers or book text

When a document is readily available, especially via the web, it is generally preferable to link to it, rather than incorporate the text into the wiki. This is especially true for SPE papers in OnePetro. The page PetroWiki:Copyright describes what SPE materials can be included in PetroWiki and which should not. When the text does not belong to SPE, there can be a danger of copyright violations. Contributors are asked to acknowledge that the work is original or they have received permission for its inclusion. But if contributed text sounds familiar (like you've read it elsewhere), or if parts of the contribution have a very different style or level of English, a little detective work to make certain that the work isn't from elsewhere may be needed. Let staff know if we can help with this effort.

New pages

Members may have a tendency to put contributions on an existing page that should actually be on a new page because it is easier. If a page is really long or is beginning to cover multiple topics, consider whether a new page should be created. If it is a subtopic likely to attract a lot of additions, or that diverges from the main topic, then a new page may be appropriate.


Category