Subject:
Re: Wikipedia articles on the LDP
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
30 Jan 2002 01:39:01 -0000
Message-Id: <20020130023006.GE24676@lupercalia.net>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 01:31:42AM +0000, Martin WHEELER wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, David Merrill wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 10:10:34PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
>
> > It's been three days, and no response. I don't know how to interpret
> > that. Does nobody care, or does silence mean agreement?
>
> Some of us work 7-day shifts without necessarily replying to our e-mail
> in between. :)
:-)
> Added to which, things have been being rushed thro' so fast that often
> by the time one gets round to thinking of replying to one suggestion, it
> has already been implemented; and the next suggestions are queueing up.
> So you throw your hands in the air and say: Why bother? What difference
> would it make anyway?
> [And carry on doing your own thing in your own little corner at your
> own speed.]
Oh, sorry. Well, I often go off and start implementing what I think is
a good idea, because I subscribe to the philosophy that there's no
substitute for working code. But nobody should assume by that that the
LDP has to use it. I do feel that the side projects I do, like
ScrollServer, tex2db, wt2db, etc. are well within the goals of the
LDP, to coordinate on all aspects of Linux documentation. But whether
the LDP itself uses my "dog food" is a separate issue.
Speaking of which, I would like to put a list of these side projects
somewhere and make them available for download. Not that they're all
ready for that right now, but as they become ready. So, heads up on
that one.
I post quite a bit about what I'm doing because I think you should all
be kept informed and have the opportunity to discuss, influence, and
even veto anything I do. And I would *love* to have collaboration with
others at any level, even in proposing or initiating their own work.
And I would much rather you let me know loudly and clearly if you
think I'm doing something wrong. I'm very very open to suggestions and
criticisms and will always abide by the views of the group -- which
isn't to say I won't advocate for my own opinions!
> > The organic nature of the LDP as an organization means I try always to
> > get consensus from the major contributors before I do anything major
> > that would affect the site. So I really want to hear from you. Please.
>
> Right.
> I love the idea of being able to edit any doc I maintain, quickly,
> simply and easily from a web-browser.
> (Recent messages on this list concerning CVS - is it there? does it
> work? wtf? - and corresponding terse replies from Serge - still haven't
> convinced me that CVS is worth attempting to use for this purpose.)
> Hence my urging of the LDP to 'think Wiki'. I still don't use CVS.
>
> And so what's been implemented as 'WikiText' I find (almost) perfect
> for my purposes.
>
> BUT --
>
> It's not really a true Wiki, is it?
> So might not others have objections to the _name_ 'Wiki'Text? (I don't.
> But I can see it being a source of contention for others.)
It's not a Wiki, but the *format* is based on the text formats of
Wikis. Ergo, WikiText -- not LDPWiki or somesuch. But I'm open to
better suggestions. I can't think of a more appropriate name.
> And if only the doc maintainer can use it, what's the point? What's the
> difference between being sole editor on your own home machine, and sole
> editor on a remote machine? For a single author, I don't get it.
> Even for multiple authors it's only a marginally better edit method.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is the way I'm starting out. I
do also plan to provide wider editing at the author's option (or at
*our* option, if we start a new document that way without an "author"
per se).
I'm trying to take it slow. Hell, the format is still changing, so I
don't want *too* many people using it until the bugs are worked out.
It's not even beta yet.
> Now for *all* approved authors, being able to access *all* documents,
> you're beginning to tap into real collaborative editing. That's where I
> want to be; and that's where I will always push to go.
> (Maybe I've adopted the WikiNature more than most. I don't know.)
Yeah, me too. I'd *love* to see that. But it would take a cultural
change, and that doesn't happen overnight. And I cannot "impose" such
a thing -- I can only make the thing so damned easy and powerful that
its benefits are self-evident, and people *choose* to use it.
> The point of a Wiki for me is that *lots* of people *other than me* can
> edit the document. (Cries off of: "Over my dead body!"; "It'll never
> work!"; "It won't handle my cuneiform!"; etc.)
> I _know_ this is controversial.
> But I'd like to see some experimentation.
BTW, I'm going to hack wt2db so that it uses a configuration file
specifying the exact form of WikiText (MeatBall, UseMod, etc., etc.),
so it can be used by *any* Wiki to export their content into DocBook.
Once I can handle multi-format Wiki, you'll be able, at your option,
to author your document on the Wikipedia (or another Wiki whose
licensing permits it) and have it mirrored to the LDP. I think that is
a better solution than us implementing a Wiki of our own.
Or even our own Wikipedia. You will have noticed by now that most of
what I work on are conversion and interoperability thingies, which are
designed to open up more documentation to us, from anywhere.
> Also I'm more than a little perturbed at the speed with which the LDP
> and WikiPaedia seem to be merging. (Or at least, getting into bed with
> each other.) I'd like to see more than a little nod in the direction of
> Ward Cunningham and his pioneering work in creating the Wiki concept,
> and less of a slavish affection for WikiPaedia. (Personal opinion.)
Wikipedia is what I know, and I do like it very much. I first had the
idea to mirror Wikipedia documents because I was so impressed with the
quality of the documents. Unlike most other Wikipedias, the tenor of
the articles is expressly professional and relatively scholarly. So
that's what I like about Wikipedia.
That said, I'm willing to form a similar arrangment with any other
Wiki that can provide suitable content. I'm sure there are many,
(offhand, there's a kernel wiki) and hopefully we can get some of them
to share content with us as well.
I really don't see us as "merging". I don't even know what you mean by
that. I expect to mirror some articles, that's all. And I'm on
friendly terms with the people there, because of the time I've spent
helping out with writing articles. There's nothing underhanded going
on, and I've been completely open about what I'm doing.
How would you like to credit Ward Cunningham? I would also like to do
that, it sounds like a very good idea and quite the polite thing.
> And what is there to prevent the LDP from setting up its own
> LinuxDocuPaedia in any case? Has this been discussed?
There's nothing to prevent it at all. There is even a Wiki out there
(MoinMoin) which already has DocBook support, and the author contacted
me after the mention of WikiText in the LDPWN. He was very friendly
and I bet he would be helpful if we wanted to use MoinMoin.
I think I will not take on any more projects for the next month or so,
but you're welcome to and I will have some time to assist. What does
the rest of the group think?
> If we're going to hyperlink the LDP docbase out to others, why restrict
> ourselves to WikiPaedia? I think this needs a little more discussion.
Sounds like a good idea to me. I would like to see much more content
on the LDP, and better interrelated. Wiki articles definitely do that.
> > Here's the gameplan I'm pursuing. I hope to have lots of new authors
> > come on board who will want to use the WikiText editing method,
> > because it is so very accessible and easy.
>
> Yo. But for what tasks, specifically?
> (The Wiki edit/authoring method is good for some; not for others.)
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you mean for which
articles, then that's up to the author.
> * Round-robin/whiteboarding outlines for new documents -- yes.
> [Everyone]
> * RFCs -- no way. [No-one]
> * For half-a-dozen authors rapidly putting together a new doc -- yes.
> [The authors concerned]
> * For a newly-completed doc requiring polishing -- yes. [Everybody]
I agree with all of those.
> > But it also has some real
> > positive advantages, as well as some capabilities, that DocBook alone
> > doesn't have.
>
> Ummm ... apples and oranges. Compare DocBook markup amd LDPWikiText
> markup conventions if you must (there's no competition); or emacs+psgml
> vs. HTML form input methods; but the actual authoring philosophies
> behind each _cannot_ be compared.
Yeah, you're right.
> > The namespaces concept is one of them. I let you make links using text
> > like this:
> >
> > [[wiki:Linux kernel]]
> > [[ldp:Linux-FAQ]]
> >
> > and my code resolves those to be links to the correct urls.
>
> This is markup / code. As lead / principal programmer, I'm happy to
> see you make the decisions on this yourself.
> Is the code available to others? Where? Is there a team of
> knowledgeable users?
The code is in the cvs. There aren't any knowledgeable users because
it's so new, but I will certainly welcome input from anyone who is
using it or hoping to use it. The way I'm developing it is how I think
is best right now. It's a best guess. I am almost definitely making
some mistakes, being fallible and shortsighted as all people are, but
I'm doing my best.
I will seriously consider implementing any ideas you have. I don't
*intend* to be monopolizing anything or dictating anything. I can see
how it might look that way sometimes, though. I think doing something
and changing it through criticism and real-world testing beats lots of
planning ahead of time, which winds up being criticized and changed
anyway.
> > Now I'm going to write a script to generate an index.html, create a
> > /wikipedia/ subdirectory, and add a link on the home page. If you have
> > problems with this, or concerns, or just want to talk about it first,
> > then speak now or forever hold your peace. :-)
>
> See above. But it's probably already done. [Yawn.]
None of these are already done. There's no done deal in software! I
usually post what I'm doing as soon as I decide to do it, and it takes
a long time before the implementation occurs. If you want to get
involved in the development, there's still a lot of work to be done
and lots of decisions not made.
> > And btw here's another project I'm working on in the background
>
> ... like it.
>
> > Actually, it's texinfo to WikiText to DocBook,
>
> ... like it even better.
Oops, 'cause I decided direct to DocBook would be a much better and
more generalized tool for the rest of the open source world, many of
whom would use it.
But if you really want to see texi2wt, I can probably do that too. The
parsing is the hard part, so adding a new output shouldn't be all that
hard.
> > Once I get that utility into a fairly workable condition, I'm going to
> > use it to convert the Jargon File sources (which are texinfo) into
> > docbook as well, and mirror *them* on the LDP, and provide a namespace
> > to link to them.
>
> That's really cool. What does Eric think about throwing the whole text
> open to the general public? (Not advisable in my opinion. Have a
> separate scratch-pad area for new contributions/additions/suggestions.)
I'm not proposing that they be available for editing, just run through
DocBook and published in an LDP layout, as they are several other
places. I have not written to him yet, and won't until I have
something to actually demonstrate. From the things he writes in the
Jargon File about mirroring, it should not be a problem as long as we
do it politely.
> > This is all to accomplish two larger, strategic goals. One, getting
> > more depth and breadth to our content, but building on the works of
> > others
>
> Yes -- absolutely.
>
> > and two, getting much more massively interlinked.
>
> Imperative (because inevitable).
:-)
Yeah, I think so too.
> > So people, let me know how you feel about all of this. I want to see
> > the LDP kick some ass this year. I want to see us be more innovative
> > and more ambitious. And have more fun doing it, too.
>
> I'll back you all the way on that one.
Thank you. I do appreciate your criticisms.
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power ... on
imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers and inducing them to
behave in ways that augment and prolong that monopoly power...
--Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the Microsoft antitrust trial
