discuss: Proposed Review HOWTO (full text)
Subject:
Re: Proposed Review HOWTO (full text)
From:
Randy Kramer ####@####.####
Date:
7 Mar 2005 20:38:49 -0000
Message-Id: <200503071538.28141.rhkramer@gmail.com>
On Thursday 03 March 2005 06:28 pm, Stein Gjoen wrote:
> Randy Kramer wrote:
> I wanted to learn more about the wiki approach and particularly the
> culture therein so the last few weeks I have been somewhat involved
> in Wikipedia to see what it involves.
>
> My own experience is somewhat negative: there is a lot of good work
> but a lot of gonzo editing, deletionists who slap on a VfD (vote for
> deletion) quite simply because they failed to understand the issues,
> a process that is fairly broken (tags are misinterpreted and tag
> removals are not handled properly) and strange attitudes to what a
> balanced view is (to make up an example: an article about the size
> of Earth would have to mention the flat earth theory for balance).
I guess a lot depends on the community around the wiki. C2 (the Portland
Pattern Repository wiki), twiki.org, and several others I've frequented work
well. Those that I know about that "stay under control" seem to be focused
on technical matters of some sort. When you get into a big audience and
religion and politics, it becomes a lot tougher. (I am aware of one wiki
that deals with religious matters at some level without major problems as far
as I know, but I don't remember the name of the wiki, and haven't spent any
(significant) time there myself.)
Note that TWiki does provide a mechanism to write protect pages (as well as
read protect).
> Wikipedia would work well if someone could baseline articles but that
> process is not even defined yet.
>
> Random acts of vandalism is common but with some efforts also
> somewhat under control
>
> The way things stand now I cannot reccomend an open wiki for TLDP.
Based on past discussions on this list, I didn't expect much enthusiasm. I
appreciate that you did take time to look at Wikipedia.
> A bug reporting system is what I would prefer and I have made a
> mock-up of a bug ticketing system for documents. It was mentioned
> earlier here but little comments have appeared so far.
>
> > Anyway, again, kudos for the short reviewers guide--I'm just trying to
> > point out what would motivate me to report errors--the easier it is for
> > me, and the more likely I think it is that my reports will be properly
> > considered and acted upon, the more likely I am to make them.
>
> Indeed. That is why I feel a tracking system would benefit both
> the reviewer and the authors, especially if a new author takes
> over an existing document and want to see the list of comments
> received so far. Also it is simpler for TLDP to keep track of how
> timely updates are made.
I think Rahul was looking into setting up a bug tracking system (not
bugzilla), for me, for the time being, I'll use the suggestion to cc the
feedback list ####@####.#### with any comments I might send to an
author.
I doubt that I would be of much help in setting up a bug tracking system, but
if a "committee" was formed, I'd be interested in trying to help.
regards,
Randy Kramer
