..oh, and for you less-techie types, a wiki is a site like Wikipedia.

For a fig wiki to have its best chance currently, I think it would need to be sponsored by the F4F Foundation, for a number of reasons. Maybe WikiF4F. 

That said, I think the current F4F Varieties database and the F4F Forum (and other fig forums) currently provide for most of the needs that a fig wiki would also provide for. I think a fig wiki would additionally help meet many needs, but "the game may not be worth the candle" given the great usefulness of the F4F Varieties database and Forum.

For example, as has been noted by multiple commenters, the F4F Varieties database currently provides a ton of cultivar synonyms and information about cultivar characteristics, which, coupled with the F4F Forum and Google search should take care of the vast majority of fig identity needs. Sure, a handy dandy abbreviated shorthand chart could be drawn up that would have its strengths and its weaknesses - especially for the most widely available or the most often confused cultivars, which could be useful even if somewhat confusing still - but again it's far from clear that even a modest effort would be worthwhile (let alone the ridiculous all-out effort being so glibly and naively proposed). Much more could be said, and maybe should be said about all this. On the other hand, quite a few horses have already been beaten to death.

I agree that we don't need anything. I was just responding to some other comments that sounded like people wanted a way to aggregate more than just a list of cultivars and synonyms. It took me no more than 10 minutes to register for a free wiki account. So, I just thought I'd put it out there in case there was a demand. 

Me... I don't plan to spend any time entering articles or data into a wiki. I already spend enough time in front of this damn computer and I have a lot of trees to take care of. I just like the idea of somebody else entering lots of useful data, pictures, how to's, etc.

I'm glad you did it. It tests the waters and shows what can be done and how readily. 

My views on this seem very similar to yours. I would consider entering some limited information as a regular user - not as an editor, probably - of some fig wiki at some point. 

The F4F Variety database is great, but it would be better with constant updating, expansion, and/or corrections. That sort of thing seems most feasible via a fig wiki.

Jon's database is a great start, but he is one busy person without the time to add to it adequately for this growing commmunity of 'fig nuts'.  That is why a Wiki might be a great thing to expand our knowledge.

I know that I would not have time to add much and I do not have the expertise on figs to really be part of such a project.  But if in the future I saw that a Wiki database did not have a picture of leaves of variety X that I had, or that my leaves looked different than the one picture there, it would be great to add a pic of leaves and/or figs with an explanation of my variety X, its origin, age, area grown, etc.  Each one of us could add info as needed in that way.  A resource like that would be very valuable to many of us.  The recent thread on the Paradiso varieties is an example of how a fig wiki could accumulate multiple pics, descriptions, and info on the different strains so people would have a better ability to check their own.  Someone interested could go back, dredge up the old pics and descriptions, and add them to the Wiki.  Somehow it would need to be organized so that info like in ascpete's database and Jon's database and future info would all be posted and available together.

Obviously someone or some people with a lot of knowledge would have to be overseeing this to some degree to prevent 'wrong' info from being posted or malicious actions.  I am not sure how the Wikipedia prevents some idiots from disrupting the useful data there.

I'm glad you did it too Paul, I'm all for it , more information for all of us.
Just make sure you keep it clean and factitious ;)

I think this is a great idea. What sort of moderators or editors are going to be in place? 

The danger is that someone can post a picture of leaf and fruit and call it "X". Others take it as fact and run with it. When disproven, the damage is impossible to undo. As more members create a demand, there should be someone (an expert, a fact finder, moderator) to fill that need. Perhaps we could donate a little of our money to F4F so that this work could be done by the experts. Maybe Jon could hire someone to help him. We would just need to step up a little. If that would be something he would want. (I don't want to speak for him). I just know this community is great and should be supported.

That's exactly my fear Aaron, one will not have any control over it. Has to be very closely monitored and censored, which meant the site has to have a narrator to keep a tight gate. Oh boy!!! i'm having a headache.

I've seen some serious articles that suggest that wikis, in appropriate circumstances, can be highly accurate and self-correcting.  Important variables involve the responsibility of the editors (ongoing demonstration of responsible actions), and the "activeness" of the community of editors, as well as the level of expertise among the editors.  Those articles still point out that at any one point in time, there may be wild inaccuracies.  But given the right community of editors, over time they tend to self-correct.  (I don't know if I can find those articles any longer... I recall that one of them was published by an information scientist at IBM's Watson Research laboratory, and another was by an author at one of the universities in England, I think Cambridge but may have been Oxford.  I suspect the US Library of Congress may have also studied this).

As others have pointed out, I think that Jon's "Varieties" pages are probably the most comprehensive listing of synonyms for Ficus carica varieties.  But I'd go further to suggest that if it's too much for just one person to maintain (and I think it is), then another step would be if Jon invites others to become co-editors.  He may well be thinking along those lines with the F4F foundation.  The set of people he invites as co-editors would become the "community of editors" for such a wiki (if he chooses to put those pages into a wiki site form, which imo is not a bad idea).

Of course, successful growth and ongoing accuracy depends quite a lot on who makes up the community of editors.  It also needs to be a large enough set, an active enough set, a responsible enough set (especially this bit about responsible action, despite the subjectivity of such initial decisions), as well as people with "enough" expertise.  Interestingly, the characteristic of responsible actors is more important than having every editor have significant level of expertise.  The set can be quite large.

My point is just this:  Having a person/committee select the editors (members of a community of editors) is likely more workable for this sort of effort, rather than selecting the edits.

I offer this thought for the F4F foundation folks, in choosing what they plan for the ongoing maintenance of Jon's excellent Varieties pages.  It is clearly "too big" for just one person.  If they choose a wiki format for the future, I suggest choosing to invite editors to the community of editors based on judgments of responsibility as well as a modicum of expertise.  A large and vibrant community of responsible editors who remain active, is preferable to a small community of people with very high expertise.  Even if many editors have only moderate amounts of expertise... if they are chosen because they act responsibly, they are a help rather than a hindrance.  Obviously, it's helpful to have some with much expertise and knowledge too.  The community, if appropriately chosen, will tend to identify those who make erroneous updates over time.  (As well as tending to correct the errors made by the editor-in-error).  The irresponsible actors become banished from the community.  With a properly active and responsible community, it can work out.    

Mike   central NY state, zone 5a