FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Documentation

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-11-2008, 11:12 AM
Goran Mekić
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

> . . . no. There's zero point in doing all the work twice (original
> article and then XMLifying it.) Especially since now you have twice the
> maintenance burden, and it IS harder to maintain XML docs than wiki
> articles.
I've never gave it a thought, but it looks logical. That being said,
is GDP ever going to switch to wiki, if wiki prooves it self as good
enough? Anyone can se few (dis)advantages of this, of course, but is
it even considered as an option?

--
FreeB(eer)S(ex)D(rugs) are the real daemons
 
Old 11-11-2008, 12:30 PM
Ben de Groot
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> I for one, am very much for a an officially Gentoo-hosted wiki. The
>> unofficial wiki has been a very valuable resource, even with its
>> shortcomings. I think we should bring it on board and offer the security
>> of our infra resources.
>
> Nope. The gentoo-wiki.com owner has already stated on the forums that he
> doesn't see a need for it to be hosted on our infrastructure. More to
> the point, he told our infra guys this when we offered him a box (he got
> a better overpowered offer elsewhere).

Did he do that after the recent debacle? I think he would be more
interested now. (Yes, people can change their mind...)

I don't think it would be worthwhile to start a competing wiki and
divide the userbase.

>> I am of the opinion that we should see the wiki more or less as we do
>> the forums. It is a place where users can contribute to the Gentoo
>> community. I would expect most of our users are internet-savvy enough to
>> understand the nature of a wiki as user-generated and user-editable
>> content, and therefore not being as reliable as say our official
>> documentation.
>
> Unfortunately, they do *not* understand this. Just look around the
> forums. Users are greatly surprised when wiki or forums tutorials break
> their boxes, then get busy pointing fingers and wondering why no one's
> updated the article. Or they notice that no one really knows; there's
> not a "solution" as such for their issue.
>
> If users see a wiki on gentoo.org, it seems more like it counts as
> "official, verified" information. Maybe the smarter ones recognize that
> like the forums, it's limited and unofficial, but by and large we
> *cannot* depend on users understanding this.

Well, then it is a case of educating the ignorant, I'd say.

> And really, I don't know that I trust the users, given what
> gentoo-wiki.com has turned into. We've seen how far most the users can
> go, and it's not enough.

>> We could add a disclaimer to the footer along the lines of: this wiki is
>> open and free for everyone to edit, therefore Gentoo cannot guarantee
>> the accuracy of its content.
>
> That's shooting ourself in the foot right there. Personally, I don't see
> the point of a resource that cannot be verified nor vetted for
> correctness. In my view, documentation simply must be accurate,
> otherwise we are doing ourselves and our users a disservice.

So in essence you are against an open wiki, that can be freely edited by
users. In that case you're turning a wiki into just a different backend
for the official documentation project. There may be merit in that, but
it is a completely different project, and not a wiki as commonly
understood. And not something I am particularly interested in.

--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (lxde, media, desktop-misc)
Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison
__________________________________________________

yngwin@gentoo.org
http://ben.liveforge.org/
irc://chat.freenode.net/#gentoo-media
irc://irc.oftc.net/#lxde
__________________________________________________
 
Old 11-11-2008, 12:37 PM
Ben de Groot
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I think we need to drop the incentive that the documentation on that
> wiki is validated by a developer. The moment you work with
> community-driven documentation, this is almost impossible to achieve.
> In my opinion, the moment we would start a wiki, we use it for what it
> is made for: community-driven documentation development.

Exactly.

> However, I would use the following practices:
>
> - Specific documentation that is "dangerous" to execute should have a
> big red warning block, telling the users that this is not common
> practice, is dangerous to execute, might result in yielding support
> from developers, yada-yada. Examples of such topics could be
> bootstrapping, editing portage code, specific C(XX)FLAGS, ...

Yes, I agree there should be indications of quality, possible danger,
bleeding-edgeness and so on. As I already said, something similar to
Wikipedia would work here, I think.

--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (lxde, media, desktop-misc)
Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison
__________________________________________________

yngwin@gentoo.org
http://ben.liveforge.org/
irc://chat.freenode.net/#gentoo-media
irc://irc.oftc.net/#lxde
__________________________________________________
 
Old 11-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Nicolas Sebrecht
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:12:03AM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:

> > 1) Who has access
> Everyone. To restrict this would be a mistake, in my opinion, and
> against the open and free nature of a wiki.
>
> > 2) Who reports faulty articles
> Wiki users (and mod team)
>
> > 3) Who fixes them
> Wiki users (and mod team)
>
> > 4) Who verifies the article is correct
> Wiki users (and mod team)
>
> We could add a disclaimer to the footer along the lines of: this wiki is
> open and free for everyone to edit, therefore Gentoo cannot guarantee
> the accuracy of its content.

I agree. I think that most users expect Gentoo to host a really opened
wiki. This doesn't mean Gentoo has to guarantee its content.

--
Nicolas Sebrecht
 
Old 11-11-2008, 04:08 PM
Duncan
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> posted 491988F5.9010206@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:30:29 +0100:

> Josh Saddler wrote:
>>
>> Nope. The gentoo-wiki.com owner has already stated on the forums that
>> he doesn't see a need for it to be hosted on our infrastructure.
>
> Did he do that after the recent debacle? I think he would be more
> interested now. (Yes, people can change their mind...)

I'm wondering on that too. Events sometimes have a way of changing
someone's mind, and if that could happen, I'd think it would have at this.

The one remaining issue I could see him being concerned about would be
that "government by committee" would ruin its effectiveness, and that
content wars and the like would eventually turn it into a hopeless mess
as a result. I think it's worth noting who already has quite some
experience in the area -- he does -- and NOT taking it out of his hands
if we do decide to host it. Perhaps some adjustment, but he had a useful
thing going, why not let him continue with it. (More after the points
below.)

> I don't think it would be worthwhile to start a competing wiki and
> divide the userbase.

Decent point.

>>> I am of the opinion that we should see the wiki more or less as we do
>>> the forums. It is a place where users can contribute to the Gentoo
>>> community. I would expect most of our users are internet-savvy enough
>>> to understand the nature of a wiki as user-generated and user-editable
>>> content, and therefore not being as reliable as say our official
>>> documentation.
>>
>> Unfortunately, they do *not* understand this. Just look around the
>> forums. Users are greatly surprised when wiki or forums tutorials break
>> their boxes[.] If users see a wiki on gentoo.org, it seems more like
>> it counts as "official, verified" information.

> Well, then it is a case of educating the ignorant, I'd say.
>
>> And really, I don't know that I trust the users, given what
>> gentoo-wiki.com has turned into.
>
>>> We could add a disclaimer to the footer along the lines of: this wiki
>>> is open and free for everyone to edit, therefore Gentoo cannot
>>> guarantee the accuracy of its content.
>>
>> That's shooting ourself in the foot right there. Personally, I don't
>> see the point of a resource that cannot be verified nor vetted for
>> correctness. In my view, documentation simply must be accurate,
>> otherwise we are doing ourselves and our users a disservice.

> So in essence you are against an open wiki, that can be freely edited by
> users. In that case you're turning a wiki into just a different backend
> for the official documentation project.

Personally, I strongly support the open wiki idea in general and see no
reason why it couldn't be on an official Gentoo domain even as such, but
I believe there's more that can be done to mitigate possible problems.

* That "shooting ourself in the foot" comment was, I intuitively thought,
headed somewhere other than it went. What I would have suggested there
would be a HEADER, not a FOOTER (thus, the footer suggestion is shooting
ourselves in the "footer", was where I expected that to go . Make it a
single paragraph at the top of every page, demarced similar to the way
IMPORTANT notes are demarced in the "official" docs, if necessary linking
to a longer disclaimer page.

* Something I've seen on both the xorg and wikipedia wikis is "locked
pages". If a particular topic appears vital enough yet continually gets
abuse that needs tended to, set it up as desired and lock it, with a
pointer to the "talk" page or etc for further suggestions. Similarly,
now dated info could be locked with an "outdated, here for historical
purposes, see <link>" disclaimer.

* Also quite effective on wikipedia are their various preformatted
"original research", "written like a commercial" etc disclaimers,
appropriately boxed and bolded so it's very difficult to miss them. The
preceding point already mentioned a couple of uses for such Gentooised
preformatted disclaimers, and there are surely others.

Of course, the guy who was running the unofficial wiki will certainly
have a lot of wisdom borne of hard experience in this area, and likely
already has reasonable solutions of his own. It'd be nice to fit the
preformatted elements into the existing Gentoo theme, but there may be
limits on fitting that into his style, both page and admin.

* The above confluence of interests does therefore suggest one possible
general solution. Basically, set it up with a Gentoo frame, including
that disclaimer header (or footer) I mentioned, on Gentoo hosting, but
otherwise give him (and the users) reasonably wide latitude, with the
agreement structured so Gentoo can do what's necessary to protect its
interests legally, of course (DMCA, copyright and libel takedown and the
like, for instance). Of course, cover dispute and termination as well.
The simplest way to do this may be to make him staff, much like the
global forum mods, but with both parties getting rights to the existing
wiki content should there be a split, so neither could hold the other
fully hostage.

(Obligatory disclosure: I've very occasionally browsed the wiki as I
came across google links or etc in the past, but it hasn't been regular
by any means. However, I've certainly missed it lately as I recently got
an Acer Aspire One, and a lot of the Google links to info (accurate or
not) on Atom CFLAGS and the like are now dead, as they pointed to gentoo-
wiki. =:^( I've ended up having to be satisfied with the Arch-Linux
forum thread on it and the like, but even that points to gentoo-wiki!
But I really haven't had time to do much with it yet anyway, so it hasn't
been a big issue... yet. Still, it's a big hole in specifically Gentoo
friendly info I'd otherwise have, and I've become acutely aware of how
many non-Gentoo users depend on the "unofficial" gentoo-wiki, whatever
problems it may or may not have with accuracy. We really do need either
it or a replacement up with /reliable/ hosting.)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 11-11-2008, 04:16 PM
Tobias Scherbaum
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Thomas Raschbacher (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:41 +0100, Goran Mekić wrote:
> > > So, I'd like to hear what you think. Should we have a wiki? Why or why
> > If you try to simplify things (suppose there's no spam, no obuse),
> > wiki could be a great pool of potetial official documentation. As I
> > see it, this is the greates value of wiki. "Just" pick good articles,
> > refine them and move them to official docs. As a person who never
> > administrated wiki, I have no clue how to secure it.
>
> How practical/possible is it to add some kind of 'verified by a
> developer / moderator' flag / tag which cannot be changed by normal
> users and only applies to a specific version of the page?

Shouldn't be a (big) problem, Wikipedia uses such a feature where
longtime users/mods/$whoever can mark a page as verified.

That being said: We need wiki.g.o.

If it's easily doable do connect forums and wiki accounts/logins - i'd
like that as well

Tobias

--
Gentoo Linux - Die Metadistribution
http://www.mitp.de/5941
http://www.metadistribution.eu

https://www.xing.com/profile/Tobias_Scherbaum
 
Old 11-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Xavier Neys
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Hey again. So there's some discussion (again) on starting up an official
> Gentoo wiki. Official meaning it's hosted on our infrastructure; e.g.
> wiki.gentoo.org. This time the discussion is coming from our fellow
> developers and infra overlords.

If infra is willing to host it, why not, as long as they keep *all* the fun to
themselves.
Don't expect GDP to be involved.

> I know that the GDP discussed this any number of times on this list, and
> some of us (most notably myself and neysx) have discussed it on the
> forums, with occasional feedback from other developers.
>
> However, it's been quite awhile since the last time we (the GDP) talked
> it over. Given our current issues of manpower and time (see
> archives.gentoo.org for commit totals), perhaps a wiki could solve some
> issues?
>
> The classic problems are:
> 1) Who has access

Anyone, it's a wiki

> 2) Who reports faulty articles

Anyone, it's a wiki

> 3) Who fixes them

Anyone, it's a wiki

> 4) Who verifies the article is correct

Anyone, it's a wiki

> 5) ???

me too.

> 6) Profit

Plenty of wor^Wfun for volunteers.

> So, I'd like to hear what you think. Should we have a wiki? Why or why
> not? If so, for once, does anyone have some *sane* ways to admin and
> moderate such a wiki?

Just let it live its wiki life.

Please let's make sure it is 'officially *hosted*' and it clearly states its
content is user-driven and not sanctioned in any way by Gentoo.

Use a license that would allow some content to be reused in our docs, you
never know, maybe some articles might be worth it.
gentoo-wiki.com used to use GFDL license (Public Domain was also mentioned, so
no one knows what license people thought they were contributing under).
When pointed out to that fact, they blanket relicensed everything under Public
Domain. Now they use CC-BY-NC-SA. How would we credit everyone if any article
was to be reused?

> There's no question that having a properly-administered wiki can be a
> powerful asset. Look at Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, the Xfce wiki, etc. What
> about Gentoo?
>
> Halcyon has brought it up again on https://bugs.gentoo.org/75855, but
> BEFORE I/we go over there and weigh in, let's hash it out here on our
> list.

Actually, there's no reason it should be discussed here. Take it to the forums
where the audience is more important. wiki.gentoo.org would be a user-driven
resource, just like the forums are, and I think many users would like the idea.

My $0.0251120


Wkr,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/
 
Old 11-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Xavier Neys
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Peter Volkov wrote:
> Seeing how many users are weeping for gentoo-wiki.com's content (its
> database was lost) I'm sure that gentoo must have own wiki.

Its DB, not its content.

> В Втр, 11/11/2008 в 01:16 -0800, Josh Saddler пишет:
>> it's been quite awhile since the last time we (the GDP) talked
>> it over. Given our current issues of manpower and time (see
>> archives.gentoo.org for commit totals), perhaps a wiki could solve some
>> issues?
>
> I think wiki should never be associated with GDP project. It's a

Agreed, this discussion should be happening here.


Wkr,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/
 
Old 11-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Xavier Neys
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Thomas Raschbacher (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:41 +0100, Goran Mekić wrote:
>>> So, I'd like to hear what you think. Should we have a wiki? Why or why
>> If you try to simplify things (suppose there's no spam, no obuse),
>> wiki could be a great pool of potetial official documentation. As I
>> see it, this is the greates value of wiki. "Just" pick good articles,
>> refine them and move them to official docs. As a person who never
>> administrated wiki, I have no clue how to secure it.
>
> How practical/possible is it to add some kind of 'verified by a
> developer / moderator' flag / tag which cannot be changed by normal
> users and only applies to a specific version of the page?

Simply impossible.
Sure you can have some 'officially sanctioned' tag on articles, but how do you
garantee it keeps this status.
Anytime anything changes in the article (easy to detect) or anywhere else in
GentooLand and the content can become very wrong.

Let users "vote" on articles, comment on them, provide feedback, and obviously
edit content... Let the wiki live its wiki life.

Wkr,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/
 
Old 11-11-2008, 04:49 PM
Peter Volkov
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

В Втр, 11/11/2008 в 17:08 +0000, Duncan пишет:
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> posted 491988F5.9010206@gentoo.org,
> excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:30:29 +0100:
> > Josh Saddler wrote:
> >> Nope. The gentoo-wiki.com owner has already stated on the forums that
> >> he doesn't see a need for it to be hosted on our infrastructure.
> >
> > Did he do that after the recent debacle? I think he would be more
> > interested now. (Yes, people can change their mind...)
>
> I'm wondering on that too. Events sometimes have a way of changing
> someone's mind, and if that could happen, I'd think it would have at this.

This was after. I've tried to contact him too and afaik there was an
official proposal at the same time with similar results.

> > I don't think it would be worthwhile to start a competing wiki and
> > divide the userbase.
>
> Decent point.

But still we need our own wiki at Gentoo infrastructure.

--
Peter.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org