ANN: Bicycle wiki online .

[[email protected]]

I originally made this announcement on rec.bicycles.misc last week and
intended to also post in rec.bicycles.tech. I am reposting this here
now in case the message was missed by some who may be interested.

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to announce that I have launched a new wiki for
bicycle/cycling related content at http://www.velowiki.com/ .

If you feel you have something to contribute, please feel free to do
so. The site is very new and any contributions will help.

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about the site,
please feel free to contact me off list.

Thanks,
Carl.

[jim beam]

wrote:
> I originally made this announcement on rec.bicycles.misc last week and
> intended to also post in rec.bicycles.tech. I am reposting this here
> now in case the message was missed by some who may be interested.
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I just wanted to announce that I have launched a new wiki for
> bicycle/cycling related content at http://www.velowiki.com/ .
>
> If you feel you have something to contribute, please feel free to do
> so. The site is very new and any contributions will help.
>
> If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about the site,
> please feel free to contact me off list.
>
> Thanks,
> Carl.
>
i think this is a great idea. but who owns this server and what's its
future? i don't care to spend a bunch of time uploading content only to
have it disappear 3 months down the road. answers please!

[[email protected]]

jim beam wrote:
> i think this is a great idea. but who owns this server and what's its
> future? i don't care to spend a bunch of time uploading content only to
> have it disappear 3 months down the road. answers please!

Hi Jim,

I understand your concern.

Currently, I am hosting the site on a shared server plan I have.

As far as ensuring that the the site doesn't just disappear, I am open
to any suggestions. It is not my intention to be 'sole owner' of the
site or its contents, and would be more than willing to work with
people on distributing the contents for archival purposes.

If you have any suggestions or more specific questions, please let me
know.

--
Carl.
http://www.velowiki.com

[Hank Wirtz]

jim beam > wrote in news:76SdndYwrtey2bLZRVn-
:

> wrote:
>> I originally made this announcement on rec.bicycles.misc last week and
>> intended to also post in rec.bicycles.tech. I am reposting this here
>> now in case the message was missed by some who may be interested.
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I just wanted to announce that I have launched a new wiki for
>> bicycle/cycling related content at http://www.velowiki.com/ .
>>
>> If you feel you have something to contribute, please feel free to do
>> so. The site is very new and any contributions will help.
>>
>> If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about the site,
>> please feel free to contact me off list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Carl.
>>
> i think this is a great idea. but who owns this server and what's its
> future? i don't care to spend a bunch of time uploading content only to
> have it disappear 3 months down the road. answers please!

Ooh, I can see it now...the wiki wars between the two JBs over wheel
design...I'll get the popcorn....

[G.T.]

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in news:76SdndYwrtey2bLZRVn-
> :
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>I originally made this announcement on rec.bicycles.misc last week and
>>>intended to also post in rec.bicycles.tech. I am reposting this here
>>>now in case the message was missed by some who may be interested.
>>>
>>>Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>I just wanted to announce that I have launched a new wiki for
>>>bicycle/cycling related content at http://www.velowiki.com/ .
>>>
>>>If you feel you have something to contribute, please feel free to do
>>>so. The site is very new and any contributions will help.
>>>
>>>If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about the site,
>>>please feel free to contact me off list.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Carl.
>>>
>>
>>i think this is a great idea. but who owns this server and what's its
>>future? i don't care to spend a bunch of time uploading content only to
>>have it disappear 3 months down the road. answers please!
>
>
> Ooh, I can see it now...the wiki wars between the two JBs over wheel
> design...I'll get the popcorn....

Exactly the reason wiki's suck along with the crappy grammar and spelling.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

[Paul Cassel]

G.T. wrote:

>>
>> Ooh, I can see it now...the wiki wars between the two JBs over wheel
>> design...I'll get the popcorn....
>
> Exactly the reason wiki's suck along with the crappy grammar and spelling.
>
I guess in your ideal world, either Jobst or Jim would be THE authority
and he'd be the ONLY one we'd hear from.

Authoritarians Unite! You have nothing to lose but debate, dissent and
other disorganized, messy discussion.

[jim beam]

wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>i think this is a great idea. but who owns this server and what's its
>>future? i don't care to spend a bunch of time uploading content only to
>>have it disappear 3 months down the road. answers please!
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I understand your concern.
>
> Currently, I am hosting the site on a shared server plan I have.
>
> As far as ensuring that the the site doesn't just disappear, I am open
> to any suggestions. It is not my intention to be 'sole owner' of the
> site or its contents, and would be more than willing to work with
> people on distributing the contents for archival purposes.
>
> If you have any suggestions or more specific questions, please let me
> know.
>
> --
> Carl.
> http://www.velowiki.com
>
ok, it's a chicken and egger, but i'll run with it. if you keep it
there long enough and it gets critical mass, it'll stick around.

again, great idea!

[G.T.]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Ooh, I can see it now...the wiki wars between the two JBs over wheel
>>> design...I'll get the popcorn....
>>
>>
>> Exactly the reason wiki's suck along with the crappy grammar and
>> spelling.
>>
> I guess in your ideal world, either Jobst or Jim would be THE authority
> and he'd be the ONLY one we'd hear from.
>
> Authoritarians Unite! You have nothing to lose but debate, dissent and
> other disorganized, messy discussion.

That't not the point. Wikis are not designed to provide discussion
capabilities. Do you really want to read something that's going to
change each time jim or Jobst visits the wiki? At least on Usenet I can
usually follow the discussion.

And I rather read a book buy Jobst and then a book by jim (oh, wait,
that doesn't exist) rather than wondering when the wiki has it's most
accurate content.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

[[email protected]]

G.T. wrote:
>
> That't not the point. Wikis are not designed to provide discussion
> capabilities. Do you really want to read something that's going to
> change each time jim or Jobst visits the wiki? At least on Usenet I can
> usually follow the discussion.
>

Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and I feel
that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing lists and
bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is encouraged on each
pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki page itself is meant for.

> And I rather read a book buy Jobst and then a book by jim (oh, wait,
> that doesn't exist) rather than wondering when the wiki has it's most
> accurate content.
>

You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of view
is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of view are
presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason why they should
not both be represented on a subjects wiki page, allowing the reader to
draw his own conclusions. In fact, I believe this to be a wiki strong
point.

--
Carl.
http://www.velowiki.com

[jim beam]

wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>That't not the point. Wikis are not designed to provide discussion
>>capabilities. Do you really want to read something that's going to
>>change each time jim or Jobst visits the wiki? At least on Usenet I can
>>usually follow the discussion.
>>
>
>
> Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and I feel
> that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing lists and
> bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is encouraged on each
> pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki page itself is meant for.
>
>
>>And I rather read a book buy Jobst and then a book by jim (oh, wait,
>>that doesn't exist) rather than wondering when the wiki has it's most
>>accurate content.
>>
>
>
> You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of view
> is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of view are
> presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason why they should
> not both be represented on a subjects wiki page, allowing the reader to
> draw his own conclusions. In fact, I believe this to be a wiki strong
> point.

absolutely - well said. it's the perfect faq format.

>
> --
> Carl.
> http://www.velowiki.com
>

[Tim McNamara]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> G.T. wrote:
> >
> > That't not the point. Wikis are not designed to provide discussion
> > capabilities. Do you really want to read something that's going to
> > change each time jim or Jobst visits the wiki? At least on Usenet
> > I can usually follow the discussion.
> >
>
> Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and I
> feel that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing lists
> and bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is encouraged on
> each pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki page itself is meant
> for.

Wiki pages are frequently used to spin and bias information according to
the agenda of the author. And get re-edited and re-spun by the next
author. Etc.

> > And I rather read a book buy Jobst and then a book by jim (oh,
> > wait, that doesn't exist) rather than wondering when the wiki has
> > it's most accurate content.
> >
>
> You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of view
> is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of view are
> presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason why they
> should not both be represented on a subjects wiki page, allowing the
> reader to draw his own conclusions. In fact, I believe this to be a
> wiki strong point.

Unfortunately there is nothing about the wiki model that actually makes
this a strong point- no more so than a Usenet newsgroup, just a little
less convenient.

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
> > Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and I
> > feel that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing lists
> > and bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is encouraged on
> > each pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki page itself is meant
> > for.
>
> Wiki pages are frequently used to spin and bias information according to
> the agenda of the author. And get re-edited and re-spun by the next
> author. Etc.
>

Empirical evidence tells me that "spin and bias" are prominent in most
forms of writing, including college textbooks, advertisements, wikis
and newsgroup postings. The advantage of wikis is that _you are
encouraged_ to question, review and modify the content.

The best we can hope for is to minimize the unfounded "spin and bias",
which is where the concept of peer review can be a strong point. In my
experience, Ideas and concepts that are well presented will beat
arguments of the "____ sucks!" and "because everyone knows its true"
variety every time, particularly among those who care to think for
themselves.

> >
> > You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of view
> > is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of view are
> > presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason why they
> > should not both be represented on a subjects wiki page, allowing the
> > reader to draw his own conclusions. In fact, I believe this to be a
> > wiki strong point.
>
> Unfortunately there is nothing about the wiki model that actually makes
> this a strong point- no more so than a Usenet newsgroup, just a little
> less convenient.

The convenience of wikis vs. newsgroups is really an issue of personal
preference. I find lingering posts with misleading or blatantly
incorrect information inconvenient (most newsgroup archives have many
examples). I find redundant posts that ask the same question and
repeatedly solicit the same responses inconvenient. The wiki in my mind
provides an opportunity to create a resource for information containing
all the valid and meaningful qualities of newsgroups without much of
the irrelevant noise.

Very much like newsgroups, the quality of velowiki.com will ultimately
be determined by those who care to contribute.

Carl.

[Paul Cassel]

G.T. wrote:

>
> That't not the point. Wikis are not designed to provide discussion
> capabilities. Do you really want to read something that's going to
> change each time jim or Jobst visits the wiki? At least on Usenet I can
> usually follow the discussion.
>
> And I rather read a book buy Jobst and then a book by jim (oh, wait,
> that doesn't exist) rather than wondering when the wiki has it's most
> accurate content.
>
There currently are discussion sites, but no dedicated wiki for bikes.
I've been pleasantly impressed with the wiki movement and feel you
should give this a chance rather than saying it can't work before it's
started. In the various wiki's I've seen where I'm an expert in an area,
I've noted accurate articles.

If the J boys wanted to edit each other's stuff, they could do so here
ascribing this or that quote to the other. They don't due to their
integrity. Instead, they post their opinions as I suspect they'll do if
they participate in this wiki.

[Tim McNamara]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> > > Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and
> > > I feel that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing
> > > lists and bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is
> > > encouraged on each pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki
> > > page itself is meant for.
> >
> > Wiki pages are frequently used to spin and bias information
> > according to the agenda of the author. And get re-edited and
> > re-spun by the next author. Etc.
> >
>
> Empirical evidence tells me that "spin and bias" are prominent in
> most forms of writing, including college textbooks, advertisements,
> wikis and newsgroup postings. The advantage of wikis is that _you are
> encouraged_ to question, review and modify the content.
>
> The best we can hope for is to minimize the unfounded "spin and
> bias", which is where the concept of peer review can be a strong
> point. In my experience, Ideas and concepts that are well presented
> will beat arguments of the "____ sucks!" and "because everyone knows
> its true" variety every time, particularly among those who care to
> think for themselves.

"Peer review" is a misnomer on wiki pages, because *anyone* can revise
the page. "Peer review" in literature is restricted to people who
actually are experts in a field, and not merely people with an opinion.
Wiki pages are not "peer reviewed" in the correct sense of the term.
Unfortunately, most people who will be contributing to your wiki will be
self-appointed experts who may or may not know what they are talking
about.

Wikipedia has had to take steps to reduce the problems of pages being
written with malicious intent, written and rewritten with political,
religious or other biases. You may find yourself having to do some
editorial management on your site as well.

> > > You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of
> > > view is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of
> > > view are presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason
> > > why they should not both be represented on a subjects wiki page,
> > > allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions. In fact, I
> > > believe this to be a wiki strong point.
> >
> > Unfortunately there is nothing about the wiki model that actually
> > makes this a strong point- no more so than a Usenet newsgroup, just
> > a little less convenient.
>
> The convenience of wikis vs. newsgroups is really an issue of
> personal preference. I find lingering posts with misleading or
> blatantly incorrect information inconvenient (most newsgroup archives
> have many examples). I find redundant posts that ask the same
> question and repeatedly solicit the same responses inconvenient. The
> wiki in my mind provides an opportunity to create a resource for
> information containing all the valid and meaningful qualities of
> newsgroups without much of the irrelevant noise.

Sorry, I didn't phrase that very well. Wiki pages are a less convenient
way to post blather and disinformation than is a Usenet newsgroup, and
as a result people approach Usenet with a degree of wariness. Wiki
pages tend to be seen as authoritative, and tend to be approached less
critically by the readers.

> Very much like newsgroups, the quality of velowiki.com will
> ultimately be determined by those who care to contribute.

Of course. And therein lies the potential for serious problems in the
quality of the information available.

Additionally I have some difficulty in distinguishing the "why" of doing
this, given that there is already a massive repository of bike
information online.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/index.html#articles

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> G.T. wrote:
>>>
>>> That't not the point. Wikis are not designed to provide discussion
>>> capabilities. Do you really want to read something that's going to
>>> change each time jim or Jobst visits the wiki? At least on Usenet
>>> I can usually follow the discussion.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and I
>> feel that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing lists
>> and bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is encouraged on
>> each pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki page itself is meant
>> for.
>
> Wiki pages are frequently used to spin and bias information according
> to the agenda of the author. And get re-edited and re-spun by the
> next author. Etc.
>
>>> And I rather read a book buy Jobst and then a book by jim (oh,
>>> wait, that doesn't exist) rather than wondering when the wiki has
>>> it's most accurate content.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of view
>> is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of view are
>> presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason why they
>> should not both be represented on a subjects wiki page, allowing the
>> reader to draw his own conclusions. In fact, I believe this to be a
>> wiki strong point.
>
> Unfortunately there is nothing about the wiki model that actually
> makes this a strong point- no more so than a Usenet newsgroup, just a
> little less convenient.

Man, we all just have a political agenda on a topic as benign as bicycles,
don't we?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
_snipped_
> >
> > Empirical evidence tells me that "spin and bias" are prominent in
> > most forms of writing, including college textbooks, advertisements,
> > wikis and newsgroup postings. The advantage of wikis is that _you are
> > encouraged_ to question, review and modify the content.
> >
> > The best we can hope for is to minimize the unfounded "spin and
> > bias", which is where the concept of peer review can be a strong
> > point. In my experience, Ideas and concepts that are well presented
> > will beat arguments of the "____ sucks!" and "because everyone knows
> > its true" variety every time, particularly among those who care to
> > think for themselves.
>
> "Peer review" is a misnomer on wiki pages, because *anyone* can revise
> the page. "Peer review" in literature is restricted to people who
> actually are experts in a field, and not merely people with an opinion.
> Wiki pages are not "peer reviewed" in the correct sense of the term.
> Unfortunately, most people who will be contributing to your wiki will be
> self-appointed experts who may or may not know what they are talking
> about.
>
> Wikipedia has had to take steps to reduce the problems of pages being
> written with malicious intent, written and rewritten with political,
> religious or other biases. You may find yourself having to do some
> editorial management on your site as well.
>
_snipped_
> >
> > The convenience of wikis vs. newsgroups is really an issue of
> > personal preference. I find lingering posts with misleading or
> > blatantly incorrect information inconvenient (most newsgroup archives
> > have many examples). I find redundant posts that ask the same
> > question and repeatedly solicit the same responses inconvenient. The
> > wiki in my mind provides an opportunity to create a resource for
> > information containing all the valid and meaningful qualities of
> > newsgroups without much of the irrelevant noise.
>
> Sorry, I didn't phrase that very well. Wiki pages are a less convenient
> way to post blather and disinformation than is a Usenet newsgroup, and
> as a result people approach Usenet with a degree of wariness. Wiki
> pages tend to be seen as authoritative, and tend to be approached less
> critically by the readers.
>
> > Very much like newsgroups, the quality of velowiki.com will
> > ultimately be determined by those who care to contribute.
>
> Of course. And therein lies the potential for serious problems in the
> quality of the information available.
>


Tim,

You bring up valid and interesting points. My use of the term "peer
review" is meant in a more general sense, and meant to emphasize more
than anything that review of the content is encouraged. No one is
required to participate, and the only prerequisite for someone to
contribute is the desire to share knowledge.

I am not here to evangelize the merits of wikis, and am certainly not
declaring that the wiki idea is free of flaws; there is plenty of
information elsewhere on the 'net that either praises or criticizes the
wiki idea. I'm not sure that this is a topic we need to expand upon any
further in this newsgroup.

Again, I believe that the success/failure of a wiki depends on the
attitude of those who contribute. This seems like a good idea to me and
apparently not such a good idea to you. I think that only time will
tell whether this wiki will grow to be something useful or not.

> Additionally I have some difficulty in distinguishing the "why" of doing
> this, given that there is already a massive repository of bike
> information online.
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/index.html#articles

All I can say is that it seems like a good idea to me. There seem to be
many people interested in this topic who are willing to share their
knowledge. Having a bicycle specific wiki enables us to go into detail
which might be deemed to "domain specific" on wikipedia.

I am well aware that there are many very interesting and high quality
sites related to bicycles and cycling, but I am unaware of any that
make contributing and becoming involved as easy as a wiki would.
Whether or not this is an advantage we will soon find out.

Carl.

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
>
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>>In article om>,
>>> " > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Indeed, discussion is not necessarily the purpose of a wiki, and
>>>>I feel that area is already well covered by newsgroups, mailing
>>>>lists and bulletin boards. Discussion of wiki articles is
>>>>encouraged on each pages 'talk page', and is not what the wiki
>>>>page itself is meant for.
>>>
>>>Wiki pages are frequently used to spin and bias information
>>>according to the agenda of the author. And get re-edited and
>>>re-spun by the next author. Etc.
>>>
>>
>>Empirical evidence tells me that "spin and bias" are prominent in
>>most forms of writing, including college textbooks, advertisements,
>>wikis and newsgroup postings. The advantage of wikis is that _you are
>>encouraged_ to question, review and modify the content.
>>
>>The best we can hope for is to minimize the unfounded "spin and
>>bias", which is where the concept of peer review can be a strong
>>point. In my experience, Ideas and concepts that are well presented
>>will beat arguments of the "____ sucks!" and "because everyone knows
>>its true" variety every time, particularly among those who care to
>>think for themselves.
>
>
> "Peer review" is a misnomer on wiki pages, because *anyone* can revise
> the page. "Peer review" in literature is restricted to people who
> actually are experts in a field, and not merely people with an opinion.
> Wiki pages are not "peer reviewed" in the correct sense of the term.
> Unfortunately, most people who will be contributing to your wiki will be
> self-appointed experts who may or may not know what they are talking
> about.
>
> Wikipedia has had to take steps to reduce the problems of pages being
> written with malicious intent, written and rewritten with political,
> religious or other biases. You may find yourself having to do some
> editorial management on your site as well.
>
>
>>>>You seem to be under the false impression that only one point of
>>>>view is allowed on each article at a given time. If two points of
>>>>view are presented in an intelligent manner, there is no reason
>>>>why they should not both be represented on a subjects wiki page,
>>>>allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions. In fact, I
>>>>believe this to be a wiki strong point.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately there is nothing about the wiki model that actually
>>>makes this a strong point- no more so than a Usenet newsgroup, just
>>>a little less convenient.
>>
>>The convenience of wikis vs. newsgroups is really an issue of
>>personal preference. I find lingering posts with misleading or
>>blatantly incorrect information inconvenient (most newsgroup archives
>>have many examples). I find redundant posts that ask the same
>>question and repeatedly solicit the same responses inconvenient. The
>>wiki in my mind provides an opportunity to create a resource for
>>information containing all the valid and meaningful qualities of
>>newsgroups without much of the irrelevant noise.
>
>
> Sorry, I didn't phrase that very well. Wiki pages are a less convenient
> way to post blather and disinformation than is a Usenet newsgroup, and
> as a result people approach Usenet with a degree of wariness. Wiki
> pages tend to be seen as authoritative, and tend to be approached less
> critically by the readers.
>
>
>>Very much like newsgroups, the quality of velowiki.com will
>>ultimately be determined by those who care to contribute.
>
>
> Of course. And therein lies the potential for serious problems in the
> quality of the information available.
>
> Additionally I have some difficulty in distinguishing the "why" of doing
> this, given that there is already a massive repository of bike
> information online.
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/index.html#articles

tim, you're just illustrated the value of "peer review" in the sense of
a wiki. sheldon has a repository of many articles, some of which are
quite excellent. however, he has others that incorporate [for instance]
jobstian errors. despite years of archive evidence pointing out those
errors, they have never been corrected. why? because their author
can't or won't change them! how can factual error be irrelevant??? a
wiki allows /you/ to correct errors, it allows anyone. vandalism is
reversible. consensus, believe it or not, actually floats to the
surface, and tech articles on wikipedia are remarkably stable. provided
people contribute, there's /no/ reason why velowiki can't be a
considerably improved knowledge pool. it's not a talking shop which i
know won't interest many here, but hey, it's not designed to replace
newsgroups, so no problem there.

[41]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 15:55:00 -0700, "G.T." >
> wrote:
>
> >It will work as well as the rest of the wikis, no better, no worse. If
>
> In other words, pretty damn good.

The reason it works is that it is now so huge that it dwarfs the number
of fanatics who would screw it up or disseminate bull****. Plus, there
is now editorial oversight, so it is not at all a "pure"
implementation. The first two are not the case for one dedicated to
bicycles, and the third seems not yet on the agenda, and so there is no
point to it if "jim beam" participates.