discuss: Linux documentation wiki
Subject:
Re: Linux documentation wiki
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
13 Jan 2002 16:07:27 -0000
Message-Id: <20020113165858.GA28372@lupercalia.net>
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 08:18:30AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> Would bugzilla be a better choice here?
>
> I've been watching the wiki discussion with some concerns, and haven't
> yet been satisfied. One of them is security, another is the integrity
> of the original document. Using bugzilla addresses both of those
> issues because it does not allow the bug filer access to the source.
The whole point of a wiki, and the whole point of this exercise in the
first place, is to lower the barrier to entry. Anyone who is reading
the document and can make it better can do so easily and quickly
without any muss or fuss. I don't think Bugzilla would do that enough.
Keep in mind also that using a wiki would not have to give the poster
access to the "real" source. I would propose some kind of approval
mechanism, which could be by the author or an ldp volunteer, before
the changes are posted. We have not yet solved that though, but I
think we can.
> Also, the wiki seems to require almost instantaneous response from a
> document's maintainer to a change. Bugzilla allows a more leisurely
> response because the change is not added to the original document in a
> manner that makes it appear to be part of the original document.
Why would it require almost instantaneous response? The proposal is
that the wiki is updated immediately, but the core LDP cvs and website
is updated *whenever*.
> I don't see any evidence that a wiki allows the maintainer to deal
> with each bug/change discretely. That is, suppose three different
> people make changes to a wiki document. Tom edits something in. Dick
> sees the changes, and makes a change. Harry then comes along and makes
> other changes to Tom's edits. I would want to deal with Tom's original
> changes first, then the other two. Bugzilla would preserve Tom's
> original changes.
The Recent Changes log does let you deal with changes discretely.
> Also, bugzilla would preserve the bug filers' comments about the
> change, as well as the change itself.
Wikis do that as well. There is a "comment" field that you can fill
out along with the change.
It would be a good idea for everyone who is involved in this
discussion to try using Wikipedia or another wiki for awhile, so you
get a feel for how it works in practice. Or, see
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics
for their rebuttal to those kinds of criticisms. Wikis have their own
dynamic that is not really what you would expect if you haven't
actually spent some time on one. Wikis are nonintuitive. You really
have to actually use one for awhile to get the "wiki nature" as it's
called. :-)
FWIW, the Wikipedia has written 20,000 articles in a single year, and
many of them are really, really excellent. The potentential is
astounding for the LDP if we could capture even a small percentage of
that dynamic.
I agree with Charles that there are risks. Risks that it won't work,
that is. There is no risk to our documents in cvs if nothing goes
automatically into them. All we risk is our time and effort that might
be in a futile endeavor. I for one am willing to take that chance!
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
O she will bring the buds in the spring and laugh among the flowers
In summer's heat her kisses are sweet; she sings in leafy bowers
She cuts the cane and gathers the grain when leaves of fall surround her
Her bones grow old in wintery cold; she wraps her cloak around her
-- Traditional Celtic Song
