1 |
Ben de Groot wrote: |
2 |
> I for one, am very much for a an officially Gentoo-hosted wiki. The |
3 |
> unofficial wiki has been a very valuable resource, even with its |
4 |
> shortcomings. I think we should bring it on board and offer the security |
5 |
> of our infra resources. |
6 |
|
7 |
Nope. The gentoo-wiki.com owner has already stated on the forums that he |
8 |
doesn't see a need for it to be hosted on our infrastructure. More to |
9 |
the point, he told our infra guys this when we offered him a box (he got |
10 |
a better overpowered offer elsewhere). |
11 |
|
12 |
> I am of the opinion that we should see the wiki more or less as we do |
13 |
> the forums. It is a place where users can contribute to the Gentoo |
14 |
> community. I would expect most of our users are internet-savvy enough to |
15 |
> understand the nature of a wiki as user-generated and user-editable |
16 |
> content, and therefore not being as reliable as say our official |
17 |
> documentation. |
18 |
|
19 |
Unfortunately, they do *not* understand this. Just look around the |
20 |
forums. Users are greatly surprised when wiki or forums tutorials break |
21 |
their boxes, then get busy pointing fingers and wondering why no one's |
22 |
updated the article. Or they notice that no one really knows; there's |
23 |
not a "solution" as such for their issue. |
24 |
|
25 |
If users see a wiki on gentoo.org, it seems more like it counts as |
26 |
"official, verified" information. Maybe the smarter ones recognize that |
27 |
like the forums, it's limited and unofficial, but by and large we |
28 |
*cannot* depend on users understanding this. |
29 |
|
30 |
I think Ubuntu tackles the issue a bit differently -- there seems to be |
31 |
somewhat of a distinction between official-ish wiki/wiki articles and |
32 |
community articles. At least the basic stuff, like About, Installation, |
33 |
Desktops, etc. seems to be more or less |
34 |
Canonical-written/approved/official. Just try searching around to see |
35 |
where the differences start to creep in. Though their wiki sucks for |
36 |
searching and returning coherent results. |
37 |
|
38 |
> We could form a team of moderators (from both user and developer base) |
39 |
> that would do some quality control, similar to what happens on |
40 |
> Wikipedia. They could indicate articles of particular value and quality, |
41 |
> as well as indicate if there are issues (outdated, incorrect, |
42 |
> incomplete, etc) with specific articles. |
43 |
|
44 |
I suppose there would have to be flags/tags similar to wikipedia's "Out |
45 |
of date/needs review", with some sort of way of notifying |
46 |
admins/mods/devs/whoever about it. |
47 |
|
48 |
>(and mod team) |
49 |
|
50 |
Who is this mod team, really? I've seen some proposals for forum mods, |
51 |
but none of them have expressed any interest in it; they've enough work |
52 |
as it is. The ebuild devs aren't so interested in it; they're not |
53 |
interested in docs of any kind, and they've enough work as it is doing |
54 |
ebuilds. Basically, the developer pool is out. |
55 |
|
56 |
And really, I don't know that I trust the users, given what |
57 |
gentoo-wiki.com has turned into. We've seen how far most the users can |
58 |
go, and it's not enough. |
59 |
|
60 |
Infra has only said that they are willing to host one, and administer |
61 |
the server hardware itself. Spam and day-to-day article maintenance |
62 |
would not be performed by infra. |
63 |
|
64 |
> We could add a disclaimer to the footer along the lines of: this wiki is |
65 |
> open and free for everyone to edit, therefore Gentoo cannot guarantee |
66 |
> the accuracy of its content. |
67 |
> |
68 |
|
69 |
That's shooting ourself in the foot right there. Personally, I don't see |
70 |
the point of a resource that cannot be verified nor vetted for |
71 |
correctness. In my view, documentation simply must be accurate, |
72 |
otherwise we are doing ourselves and our users a disservice. |