Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] Wiki, Take #whatever
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:14:33
Message-Id: 6de0e7060811110214h6050daddkd782804a29a7a755@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-doc] Wiki, Take #whatever by Josh Saddler
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] Wiki, Take #whatever Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>