| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:22:18PM -0800, Josh Saddler wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> We're going to see what we already have now: a conflict between the wiki |
| 4 |
> and the "official" documentation. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm pretty sure users would see the wiki as an extra source of |
| 7 |
documentation, not a "conflicting with" official documentation. Wikis |
| 8 |
are (in essence and in users mind at least) known to be a *users* |
| 9 |
product. This implies it could be sometimes not perfect or partially |
| 10 |
wrong/obsolete. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> "Well, the wiki says this, but the official docs say this." |
| 13 |
> "Which do I follow?" |
| 14 |
> "Well, the official docs are wrong/out-of-date, just do the wiki, even |
| 15 |
> though it's harder to follow." Etc. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> This is why I feel having a wiki really *is* relevant to the GDP. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Of course, such confilts could happen. IMHO it's not a valuable reason |
| 20 |
to have a wiki checked by the GDP anymore (taking out licensing or alike |
| 21 |
considarations). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Conflicts should obiously be a start up to improvements. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Also, if we do have a wiki, why shouldn't the *GDP* embrace it in some |
| 26 |
> way? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Why the GDP couldn't embrace a really opened wiki ? The GDP members have |
| 29 |
fortunately all the requirements to become contributors/admins. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> There may be some merit in attempting to merge |
| 32 |
> these disparate documentation bases. Maybe it could be a way to increase |
| 33 |
> participation from the community. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think that an irrelevant to the GDP wiki *is* a way to increase |
| 36 |
participation from the community. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Nicolas Sebrecht |
Archives