discuss: wiki was(the good the bad and the ugly)
Subject:
wiki was(the good the bad and the ugly)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
23 Nov 2003 20:52:01 -0000
Message-Id: <20031123205125.GB386@lafn.org>
> > Rahul Sundaram ####@####.#### wrote:
> > > I dont know if this is sarcasm, anger or humour.
> >
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:19:11AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2003 07:48, you wrote:
Can you get an email client that will print who "you" is?
> > It's sarcasm and anger, and I understand him. I was also annoyed by your
> > previous comment that we should obviously use wikis, and that anybody
> > who thought otherwise had to justify his opinion.
I tend to agree with "you" but not with the other you. Maybe it's a
little overstated but ...
> >
> > Yves
>
> I went back and reread what I said.
>
> quoting myself
>
> ----
>
> "I am interested in the wiki. If you can take some of the docs. I
> suggestion a few simple faqs, the introduction to linux guide and some
> other high profile docs in plain text from tldp.org and setup a
> working wiki and post a link to it. if and when wiki is considered a
> suitable replacement or atleast an alternative for some of the docs we
> can have a link from tldp. thanks"
This would be wrong unless the author requests it. People making
changes or commenting on a wiki assume that the author will read over
what they do and change the main doc accordingly. If authors don't do
this, then contributors to the wiki are being cheated. You will
probably agree now, but that wasn't your original proposal above.
"Lampadas" would let (I think) the author create a wiki. But we don't
have it now. So now contacting all the authors manually and setting up
wikis for those that want it is a big task. I don't think we even have
a list of the emails of the authors. Who will follow up on authors that
don't respond? Will the replies from authors be processes manually?
The response may be more than just a simple "yes" or "no". Even the
composing the email would not be so simple. Authors not familiar with
wiki will need to be referred to a wiki doc for learning how it works.
An example of wiki diffs needs to be included, etc.
How could such a long discussion of wiki take place without anyone
even changing the subject to wiki!
> ---
> "excellent idea. i have asked randy to set this up.
You shouldn't ask for someone to set something up until the consensus is to
do it. If it's just for Rahul's HOWTOs then it's probably OK.
David Lawyer
> Those who object should come up with clarifications at to what they
> object specifically.remember for now this is an alternative. We will
> mail the authors independantly informing up of this alternative setup
> once its done"
Shouldn't this apply also to the proponents? I think the opponents, etc.
did give reasons.
>
> ----------
>
> I never said that wiki is the obvious system to use.
True, but your enthusiasm for it tended to imply this.
> I believe asking people to justify their opinions is a fair thing to
> do. dont you?
>
> I also mentioned that wiki is something that is setup easier(Randy has
> already did it now). Lampadas is probably a superior system. I said we
> can implement wiki now as an *alternative system* until some other
> *functional* solution exists. If people dont use wiki then LDP wont
> implement it. I dont have the need or power to do that. I am trying to
> brainstorm ideas to improve LDP. All the discussions are just that
> unless something gets implemented.
>
> I said if someone brings up objections to anything at all in the list
> they should take care to explain their objection so people can
> understand your viewpoint and defends who wanted to defend their
> viewpoint can do so. Its not that I love wiki and I am forcing
> everyone to use it.I apologise if I offended anybody by what I said. I
> do not apologise for things I never said and those of you who read
> things i didnt say should not blame me.
>
> Regards Rahul Sundaram
