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, 06:26 PM
Jan Kundrát
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Goran Mekić wrote:

That being said, is GDP ever going to switch to wiki, if wiki prooves
it self as good enough?


Please ask again when the wiki will have run properly for at least six
months.


Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
 
Old 11-11-2008, 10:22 PM
Josh Saddler
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Xavier Neys wrote:
> 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.

Xavier, thanks for your input; it's appreciated. Your proposal makes
sense, but I think it's actually untenable in the long run.

We're going to see what we already have now: a conflict between the wiki
and the "official" documentation.

"Well, the wiki says this, but the official docs say this."
"Which do I follow?"
"Well, the official docs are wrong/out-of-date, just do the wiki, even
though it's harder to follow." Etc.

This is why I feel having a wiki really *is* relevant to the GDP. We'll
be running into the problem we have now, which is essentially a fork in
our documentation, whether that documentation is primarily contributed
by users or developers.

Also, if we do have a wiki, why shouldn't the *GDP* embrace it in some
way? My reasoning here is that we have so little contribution from
*anyone* these days, users or developers. Yes, Gentoo is known for its
accurate, in-depth official documentation, but it's also known for the
wealth of user-contributed articles. I think there will be problems on
down the road if we continue to keep the two completely separate; we're
seeing this even now. There may be some merit in attempting to merge
these disparate documentation bases. Maybe it could be a way to increase
participation from the community.

> 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?

Yup, licensing is important; at least Gentoo would control the license
from the start, since as you say gentoo-wiki.com blanket relicensed
content many times over the years.
 
Old 11-11-2008, 11:25 PM
"Douglas Anderson"
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Disclaimer: I'm not a dev

Just a few thoughts before this gets thrown out into the wild. Some people have been saying that a wiki on the gentoo domain would confuse users and make them think it was somehow sanctioned information. If you've spent any time in #gentoo in the last month or so, you know that almost everyone thought gentoo-wiki.com was controlled by gentoo (including myself). So that would actually be less confusing for most users. Also, everyone pretty much understands the point of a wiki.


Also, I always liked the idea of GLEP 51 (gentoo knowledge base). The idea of having some kind of a dev stamp of approval on high-quality wiki articles, as suggested above, would serve the same purpose. I think it would be a great way to increase the number of doc submissions. Users and devs who submitted wiki articles could increase the quality over time, request a review, and try to get a "This article is part of the Gentoo Knowledge Base" stamp on it. Just an idea...


Lastly, considering the GDP's reputation for quality docs, I would love if you were in charge of the wiki. If you're short on manpower, I'm a competent (enough) user who would love to be part of this new wiki project if it goes through. Give me a shout next time I'm in #gentoo-doc (djanderson).


-Doug
 
Old 11-11-2008, 11:45 PM
AllenJB
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Hi all,

First of all, for those of you who don't know, I'm an admin on the new
Gentoo-Wiki.com and was a long time contributor before that on the old
wiki. Having said that, while the wiki did occasionally go down, a loss
like the one that happened will be less likely to happen again as a
proper offsite backup policy is now in place.


While I would be pleased to see a wiki hosted on official resources as
Gentoo probably have far more resources at their disposal than any user
run site could hope to acquire.


However, in saying that I would be concerned about an officially hosted
wiki from what I've read so far.


It's been suggested that the wiki be moderated by forum mods. I believe
that a separate team would be needed. Administering the wiki takes at
least an hour a day (estimate, once it's at "full steam" - it's been
quiet recently due to the down time, but it's slowly getting busier),
and that's without considering extra work into tidying up articles -
making sure they are properly formatted and they don't contain any
obvious errors or bad practices.


There's also been no discussion on how foreign languages would be
handled. The new wiki has more supported languages than before - the
current list (from the topic of #gentoo-wiki on EFNet) is:
en,cs,de,es,fi,fr,nl,ru,tr


You also need to think about the style in which articles on the wiki
should be written and the templates used. What will policies be on
creation of new templates? What will the page naming conventions be?


While a true wiki is open to editing by all, and you may opt to protect
certain articles (because you deem them to be "official" or whatever),
you will still need admins who will handle spam, page deletions and user
restrictions. You will obviously want admins for each language you
support. Who will they be and what will the recruitment process be? Will
they get any training?


If you intend to create a wiki to replace gentoo-wiki.com, how will you
handle this? If the wikis end up running side-by-side, will you have
policies on copying from gentoo-wiki.com? (You should probably have
policies on copying from other wikis anyway)


There are probably some other topics I've missed above, but as you can
see there's a lot that I believe needs to be discussed but hasn't been
at all. Everyone's saying "yes" for an official wiki, but how much
thought is going into how it would actually work?


AllenJB
 
Old 11-12-2008, 08:13 AM
Jan Kundrt
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

AllenJB wrote:
While I would be pleased to see a wiki hosted on official resources as
Gentoo probably have far more resources at their disposal than any user
run site could hope to acquire.


Hi Allen,
that's great to hear, but it's actually a bit different from what Josh
said earlier in a related thread [1]. I take it that you're actually
open to being hosted by the gentoo infra, am I correct here? That'd be
great to hear.



It's been suggested that the wiki be moderated by forum mods.


I think that this idea got abandoned. We don't want to maintain the wiki
pages.


[snipped a bit about running wiki and proper workflows]

While a true wiki is open to editing by all, and you may opt to protect
certain articles (because you deem them to be "official" or whatever),
you will still need admins who will handle spam, page deletions and user
restrictions. You will obviously want admins for each language you
support. Who will they be and what will the recruitment process be? Will
they get any training?


Well, in my opinion, the wiki is supposed to be self-maintained (as in
"users themselves are expected to fix spam/vandalism/whatever"). Isn't
that a concept that works on large wikis pretty well? Do you have
reasons to believe that it won't work for a Gentoo one?


If you intend to create a wiki to replace gentoo-wiki.com, how will you
handle this? If the wikis end up running side-by-side, will you have
policies on copying from gentoo-wiki.com? (You should probably have
policies on copying from other wikis anyway)


This reminds me of an "issue" with the license of your wiki. While you
are of course free to choose any license you want for your projects,
have you considered switching to CC-BY-SA instead of CC-BY-NC-SA? That
is a license that is: a) used by all of the Gentoo documentation, b)
compatible with the recent release of GFDL. The current license, while
being a bit more protective about user's rights, prevents any contents
from our documentation or, for example, the Wikipedia, to be used in
your wiki and vice versa.


And there's also one last point that I believe should be raised here.
The gentoo-wiki.com, as it is now, currently violates some of the bits
of our name-logo-usage document [2]. I believe this is not done on
purpose, but rather as an error. Could you please have a look at the
document and fix the wiki templates, so that it is compliant with our
document?


Please don't take me wrong here, I've personally found many of the
resources available at your wiki really valuable (with some of the
others being, well, broken). I was sad to see gentoo-wiki going down
(and can realize your frustration when you can't reach your boxes
anymore), but even more disappointed when users came to us, the Gentoo
developers, and expressed that they weren't aware that none of the
gentoo-*.com projects are *not* affiliated with Gentoo at all.


Cheers,
-jkt

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc/msg_9ffb2b35be3b5c6724f290dccd0897bf.xml

[2] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml


--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
 
Old 11-12-2008, 09:22 AM
"Thomas Raschbacher (Gentoo)"
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:30 +0100, Xavier Neys wrote:
> 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,

Well basically you'd have to lock the pages which are really important
or just really well written with a link to another page aobut discussing
it (someone else mentioned that in another mail on this thread)

Also i have to point out that the 'vote' approach would have the same
problems if it just votes on the article nto a specific revision of
it ..
 
Old 11-12-2008, 09:31 AM
AllenJB
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Jan Kundrt wrote:

AllenJB wrote:
While I would be pleased to see a wiki hosted on official resources as
Gentoo probably have far more resources at their disposal than any
user run site could hope to acquire.


Hi Allen,
that's great to hear, but it's actually a bit different from what Josh
said earlier in a related thread [1]. I take it that you're actually
open to being hosted by the gentoo infra, am I correct here? That'd be
great to hear.


I'm only an admin. Thrasher, who actually runs the site, would be the
one to make such a decision.





It's been suggested that the wiki be moderated by forum mods.


I think that this idea got abandoned. We don't want to maintain the wiki
pages.


[snipped a bit about running wiki and proper workflows]

While a true wiki is open to editing by all, and you may opt to
protect certain articles (because you deem them to be "official" or
whatever), you will still need admins who will handle spam, page
deletions and user restrictions. You will obviously want admins for
each language you support. Who will they be and what will the
recruitment process be? Will they get any training?


Well, in my opinion, the wiki is supposed to be self-maintained (as in
"users themselves are expected to fix spam/vandalism/whatever"). Isn't
that a concept that works on large wikis pretty well? Do you have
reasons to believe that it won't work for a Gentoo one?


Wiki's are not self maintaining. I don't believe you've ever been
involved with one to any extent if you believe this. Any unmaintained
wiki will become a useless mass of spam and bad articles.


While most of the maintainence work is doable by registered users, there
are some tasks which registered users can't (and you wouldn't want them
to be able to) do, such as deleting articles and banning users. If you
don't ban spammers and their IPs, they will just keep coming back and
you'll have a snowball effect on your hands. While users can remove all
content from any article, they can't actually delete articles (or
undelete them). You'll want to do this to keep the wiki clean, otherwise
you'll end up with lots of empty pages.


While users can do other chores such as moving pages to comply with
naming conventions and checking and tagging articles that need cleaning
up (and then actually cleaning them up), my opinion is that you will
want a team of dedicated volunteers to do this. Give them a title like
"Wiki maintainer" or something similar. While ideally users would do
these tasks without such structure, I believe giving them titles (even
if they don't get any powers over regular users) does help.





If you intend to create a wiki to replace gentoo-wiki.com, how will
you handle this? If the wikis end up running side-by-side, will you
have policies on copying from gentoo-wiki.com? (You should probably
have policies on copying from other wikis anyway)


This reminds me of an "issue" with the license of your wiki. While you
are of course free to choose any license you want for your projects,
have you considered switching to CC-BY-SA instead of CC-BY-NC-SA? That
is a license that is: a) used by all of the Gentoo documentation, b)
compatible with the recent release of GFDL. The current license, while
being a bit more protective about user's rights, prevents any contents
from our documentation or, for example, the Wikipedia, to be used in
your wiki and vice versa.


And there's also one last point that I believe should be raised here.
The gentoo-wiki.com, as it is now, currently violates some of the bits
of our name-logo-usage document [2]. I believe this is not done on
purpose, but rather as an error. Could you please have a look at the
document and fix the wiki templates, so that it is compliant with our
document?


We'll check the issues you've raised above and make any changes we
believe necessary. Thanks for raising this.




Please don't take me wrong here, I've personally found many of the
resources available at your wiki really valuable (with some of the
others being, well, broken). I was sad to see gentoo-wiki going down
(and can realize your frustration when you can't reach your boxes
anymore), but even more disappointed when users came to us, the Gentoo
developers, and expressed that they weren't aware that none of the
gentoo-*.com projects are *not* affiliated with Gentoo at all.


To my knowledge the wiki has always made best efforts to inform users
that the site is official and has never claimed to be official in any
capacity. It is and never has been the intention to mislead anyone in
this regard.


AllenJB



Cheers,
-jkt

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc/msg_9ffb2b35be3b5c6724f290dccd0897bf.xml


[2] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml
 
Old 11-12-2008, 11:54 AM
Nicolas Sebrecht
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:22:18PM -0800, Josh Saddler wrote:

> We're going to see what we already have now: a conflict between the wiki
> and the "official" documentation.

I'm pretty sure users would see the wiki as an extra source of
documentation, not a "conflicting with" official documentation. Wikis
are (in essence and in users mind at least) known to be a *users*
product. This implies it could be sometimes not perfect or partially
wrong/obsolete.

> "Well, the wiki says this, but the official docs say this."
> "Which do I follow?"
> "Well, the official docs are wrong/out-of-date, just do the wiki, even
> though it's harder to follow." Etc.
>
> This is why I feel having a wiki really *is* relevant to the GDP.

Of course, such confilts could happen. IMHO it's not a valuable reason
to have a wiki checked by the GDP anymore (taking out licensing or alike
considarations).

Conflicts should obiously be a start up to improvements.

> Also, if we do have a wiki, why shouldn't the *GDP* embrace it in some
> way?

Why the GDP couldn't embrace a really opened wiki ? The GDP members have
fortunately all the requirements to become contributors/admins.

> There may be some merit in attempting to merge
> these disparate documentation bases. Maybe it could be a way to increase
> participation from the community.

I think that an irrelevant to the GDP wiki *is* a way to increase
participation from the community.

--
Nicolas Sebrecht
 
Old 11-12-2008, 12:38 PM
"Marco Clocchiatti"
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

>
> I'm pretty sure users would see the wiki as an extra source of
> documentation, not a "conflicting with" official documentation. Wikis
> are (in essence and in users mind at least) known to be a *users*
> product. This implies it could be sometimes not perfect or partially
> wrong/obsolete.
>
I agree,
the goal of wiki is not the technical quality (even if the quality
also is often very good), but the free expression of users.
it's a service for the community, not a launch window of the distribution.

the only thing developers should do in the wiki is to have sometimes a
look to some principal articles, but they have not to carry the
responsiblity of them. History carries this resposibility for them.

my few cent (and sorry for my english).
 
Old 11-12-2008, 02:14 PM
Ben de Groot
 
Default Wiki, Take #whatever

Peter Volkov wrote:
> 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.

And why was that not made public? This is the first I hear about that.

--
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
__________________________________________________
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 AM.

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