discuss: TLDP and WIkipedia
Subject:
Re: TLDP and Wikipedia
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
19 Aug 2005 12:31:45 -0000
Message-Id: <4305D0EC.3030308@mail.nyx.net>
jdd wrote:
> Stein Gjoen wrote:
>
>> It has to be good enough to prevent banned users from re-registering
>> under a new user name and then continue the vandalism. In my brief
>> report I pointed out one such case.
>
> tldp is not wikipedia. vandalism is proportional to public exposure.
> Wikipedia address all the world, tldp only linux addicts. there will
> probably be much less vandalism here. and authors should be allowed to
> lock they howto page
Don't underestimate the exposure of TLDP. I monitor hits to my
web pages and get 300-1000 hits per day. Also we should not
underestimate the anti-linux crowd (the energy I mean, not their
intellect).
>> I am not sure how you imagine a wiki should be used at TLDP. My
>> conclusion from more than 6 months use is that it is quite
>> unsuitable for HOWTO editing. For commenting it might be of use.
>
> In my spirit the simplest way is howto page locked by author (can be
> unlocked if necessary, for example in updating process) and discussion
> page open. Only ahtors volutary howto setup here.
We need to think carefully about write and comment permissions.
Primary author is obvious. Still, what about the reviwers?
Other trusted TLDP members? We need not only agreement but also
clear understanding here from all participants.
>> If the purpose is just for fast contact, commenting or discussion
>> a plain web forum is sufficient.
>
> it's a very different media
True. I want to make sure we select the right tool for the job.
>> Anyway we have to first agree on purpose and use
>
> yes
>
> before deciding on
>
>> implementation. Tools should fit TLDP, notthe other way round.
>
> no. We have no way of rewriting a wiki tool. there are already aother
> linuw wiki, they don"t have so many problem as long as I know. tldp must
> use what exists and what people are acustomed to use.
Substituting one imperfect process for an unsuitable tool without
proper suporting processes does not seem like progress to me.
> actual ldp seems very old fashionned, do you know ?
I work hard to make it better.
>>> history is made for that (not always handy though)
>
> I use to let notes on the discuss page of the editor (often a thanks :-)
I have used discuss pages too but feedback can be slow or nonexistent.
> > Why not? Wikipedia
>
> wikipedia is a reference only in that it uses mediawiki and prove the
> strenght of the code of this wiki, not as an tldp clone (alas :-)
Software is only part of this, process should not be underestimated.
>> Good English is not even sufficient when it comes to edit wars between
>> American English and British English spelling, a total waste of time.
>
> does this exists in tldp world? do you know there is also an australian
> spelling - one or two "m" after program :-).
I have never seen that on TLDP, I would not expect the reviewers
to spend time on arguing over language variations.
> let's us try. a wiki like the one I advocate is very few work. If it
> sucks, it will be shut off, that's all.
We could find volunteers for a few HOWTOs for full Wiki treatment
and some for Wiki commenting alone. That might give us a few early
impressions without committing too many resources.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
