discuss: Linux documentation wiki
Subject:
Re: Linux documentation wiki
From:
Randy Kramer ####@####.####
Date:
12 Jan 2002 22:00:41 -0000
Message-Id: <3C40B138.1A68@fast.net>
Martin,
Thanks for the response! Yes, I believe we did exchange some pointers
back then. I'm going to look up the Glastonbury WikiPaedia (assuming
it's accessible) and Cheshire. I'm not really "affiliated" with the
LDP, but I'm sure David and others are reviewing these emails.
Randy Kramer
Martin WHEELER wrote:
> Thanks for the very useful pointers, Randy. (I think we exchanged one
> or two ideas at the time. Mine grew into the Glastonbury WikiPaedia, as
> well as the current HOWTO experiment.)
>
> > At that time, I chose TWiki for my purposes.
>
> I too first used TWiki.
> Then it gave me problems (err -- it had more functionality than I wanted
> to cope with :), so I moved over to PHPWiki; but recently I've been
> toying with the idea of trying out MoinMoin -- but having difficulty
> getting it to work under Debian. (Don't know why. Didn't have time to
> play to find out, either. Needed a working wiki, not an in-depth
> knowledge of how to install MoinMoin on an already overloaded demo box.)
>
> > I haven't personally seen anything I'd choose instead. (I haven't
> > really been looking either.)
>
> Depends on what you want to do with it, I'd say.
>
> Have you (or the linuxdoc group in general) thought of trying out the
> Cheshire Wiki? (specifically written to work with {sg|x}ml databases)
> -- see:
>
> http://gondolin.hist.liv.ac.uk/~cheshire/rhumba/
>
> -- which incidentally, also allows very fine-grained control of who is
> allowed to edit what, and in which document. Purrfect.
> (Another advantage of the Cheshire Wiki is that it would make re-use of
> data segments across documents an absolute doddle. If ever wanted.)
> Personally, I'd say that was the best starting point for this group --
> or are we all too busy roaring off into the sunset along our own trail
> already?
>
> Colin [Watson] made a telling remark when he pointed out that not
> necessarily everyone wants CVS access to make a couple of minor
> alterations to a document; so before we go off writing reams of code,
> maybe a few moments reflection on where we want to go with this would be
> in order.
>
> 1. Some documents positively cry out for wikification, as Colin points
> out -- specifically those dealing with a _broad_ required knowledge
> base, such as the Distributions document; while others, with a highly
> specialised knowledge base shared by probably only a few (e.g.
> environmental habitat of the lymnogale) would do better with a different
> form of treatment.
>
> 2. Some authors are very prickly about who edits their prose, and would
> rather bury it than share it (anyone here use PHP-Nuke?) -- wikification
> may not be for them. (Or rather, their prose offerings.)
>
> 3. Some texts require extremely precise wording, and are therefore best
> edited by a small, tightly-knit team who have already developed a
> network of trust relationships -- wikification here could spell
> disaster. (Think medical and legal.)
>
> So perhaps we should start thinking about the *types* of document we
> might want to wikify, before anything else (rather than blindly applying
> the process to everything in sight; or writing general-purpose code);
> also, where we might want the process to go eventually -- I would say
> somewhere in the direction the Cheshire Wiki is leading already.
>
> And David [Merrill] has quite rightly said -- Do we really want a wiki
> (yet)? Or do we just want a quick'n'dirty means of doing on-the-spot
> edits to already existing documents as we browse through them? (Wikis
> are best at putting together new documents -- fast.)
>
> More thoughts, anyone?
