1 |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> However, it's been quite awhile since the last time we (the GDP) talked |
3 |
> it over. Given our current issues of manpower and time (see |
4 |
> archives.gentoo.org for commit totals), perhaps a wiki could solve some |
5 |
> issues? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> The classic problems are: |
8 |
> 1) Who has access |
9 |
> 2) Who reports faulty articles |
10 |
> 3) Who fixes them |
11 |
> 4) Who verifies the article is correct |
12 |
> 5) ??? |
13 |
> 6) Profit |
14 |
|
15 |
I think we need to drop the incentive that the documentation on that |
16 |
wiki is validated by a developer. The moment you work with |
17 |
community-driven documentation, this is almost impossible to achieve. |
18 |
In my opinion, the moment we would start a wiki, we use it for what it |
19 |
is made for: community-driven documentation development. |
20 |
|
21 |
However, I would use the following practices: |
22 |
|
23 |
- Specific documentation that is "dangerous" to execute should have a |
24 |
big red warning block, telling the users that this is not common |
25 |
practice, is dangerous to execute, might result in yielding support |
26 |
from developers, yada-yada. Examples of such topics could be |
27 |
bootstrapping, editing portage code, specific C(XX)FLAGS, ... |
28 |
- Translations of documentation are free to perform and should not be |
29 |
reigned by rules such as "must be based upon a revision of the English |
30 |
documentation". This does assume that the topic in the wiki is |
31 |
self-explanatory. |
32 |
- Wiki information pertaining to ~arch stuff should be in a different |
33 |
namespace or some other way of destinguishing them (if not, even a tag |
34 |
would help) that informs people that ~arch ebuilds are not tested |
35 |
enough and can contain bugs |
36 |
|
37 |
As manpower is important with wiki's (think of spam regulation), it |
38 |
would be nice if we could tie forum accounts to wiki accounts, and |
39 |
edits on the wiki are only allowed with accounts (no anonymous |
40 |
editing). The moment a spammer occurs, account deletion should result |
41 |
in some practice where all his/her edits are checked (I believe this |
42 |
also occurs on forums, but I'm not sure). |
43 |
|
44 |
Note that I'm not suggesting that forum admins should work on wiki's |
45 |
too - if they want to, that's great, but it's a different playground |
46 |
and I wouldn't want to push them into responsibilities they didn't ask |
47 |
for ;-) |
48 |
|
49 |
Wkr, |
50 |
Sven Vermeulen |