discuss: Thread: TLDP and WIkipedia

Discussion on wikifying TLDP works started quite some time ago
and since I am working on various technical solutions for TLDP
I decided to give it a try. I have now spent more than 6 months
writing articles from scratch, editing articles, adding comments
and feedback and participating in voting. All this in order to
gain sufficient experiences to enable me to draw a conclusion.

So rather than letting you wade through 15 ad infested pages
before concluding with a definite possibility of a firm maybe,
I'll make my conclusion here up front:

         Wikipedia in its current incarnation with software and
         processes are in my opinion not suitable for the TLDP.

When I started I expected vandalism to be the largest problem but
to my surprise that was not the case. That was then but things have
changed. Vandalism is rapidly increasing and reverts are not always
able to handle this properly anymore. Some examples:

ISO9000: large block replaced with another language which then was
badly retranslated back to English with much cleanup remaining.
This one also features vandalism by a registered user (removal of
a cleanup tag), some comments are found in the comments tab.
ISO9000      reverts: 2005: 2; 2004: 0  Article started 2002.
Hubbert Peak reverts: 2005: 6; 2004: 7  Article started 2002.
SourceForge  reverts: 2005: 1; 2004: 0  Article started 2002.

Vandalims takes on several forms from large scale deletions to
insertion of controversial points of view, by anonymous users
as well as registered pseudonymous users.

While the vandalism is clearly on the rise we should also soon
expect (robot) spamming like bloggers have experienced earlier.
Perhaps it has already started:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/13/bbc_punks_wikipedia_.html

In my opinion it is the process aspect that is the main problem
at Wikipedia and without defined processes with safeguards it
is hard to run proper quality assurance. There is however no
doubt that TLDP also has process issues. Still trading one set
of problems for another does not seem like progress. In details:

Cleanup:
occationally a page is marked with a cleanup tag,
"This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher
standard of quality." Unfortunately the reason is often not
clearly stated, nor the condition for removal of the tag. Also
pseudonymous users have removed the tag entirely without due
process (ref. ISO9000).

Deletions:
there is a group of self stated deletionists rampaging through
Wikipedia, attempting some kind of textual darwinism.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians
Stated objectives include "Outpace rampant inclusionism". This
has some strange implications. Example given is "The great filter"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/The_Great_Filter
1: requested for deletion on basis of being a "vanity page", and
strangely the vote was not executed on.
2: when that failed the argument for deletion was restated as
"a simple theory of an obscure academic"
3: a vote ended up as "merge and redirect", even though other
theories have their own pages with expanded explanations such
as the Drake equation.
4: then the redirect was set up but no merging was done.
Thus the article was in practice wiped and the deletionists
won the day.

Other votes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Release_Management
There were 2 votes to keep and 1 for cleanup versus 2 for transwiki
yet the decision ended up for transwiki.

Featured articles:
These are deemed worthy of featuring but still of course edited
later on. Unfortunately it is hard to locate the version that
was the one that was featured.

Baselining:
This is missing. Known good (enough) and featured articles should
be baselined and be easily accessible. This is important for TLDP
when running off versions for mirroring or CD inclusion.


Conclusion:
Wikipedia has a lot of energy in spite of process issues. Also
it seems to me that it does not scale well with more users that
not only bring in more vandals but also makes the system slower.
On Googling for articles I often find copies at commersial sites
that takes the opportunity to fill the pages with advertising.
I have also had problems using the search engine at Wikipedia.
For all tehse reasons I feel the Wikipedia software and method
does not work for TLDP and the documents.

Final comment:
Not all is without hope however. I have spent much time
contributing to Wikipedia in this investigation and have taken
the opportunity to add links to TLDP where relevant and not
spammy. Checking my logs I see people follow these. I hope more
can find the time to add such links where appropriate.

All this highlights the need for processes also at TLDP. We do
have a few issues ourselves we need to consider closely.


Regards,
    Stein Gjoen

On 8/14/05, Stein Gjoen ####@####.#### wrote:
> Discussion on wikifying TLDP works started quite some time ago

>          Wikipedia in its current incarnation with software and
>          processes are in my opinion not suitable for the TLDP.

Did you consider that the kind of documents TLDP makes are
incompatible with the kind that Wikipedia makes, because most TLDP
materials would be offtopic on Wikipedia, and there are many
fundamental differences between an encyclopedia article and a
howto/etc?

The issue would be that TLDP includes documents like howtos, manual
pages.  Wikipedia by contrast
is an encyclopedia and needs to use very different standards than TLDP
ought to need.

I think a better thing to compare against would be uh, Wikibooks  
(http://en.wikibooks.org)

TLDP should probably setup its own wiki, though, rather than put
documents on an outside wiki.  Nothing against WikiMedia, I just think
TLDP should stay in control of the storage of developmental versions
of documents.


After all, that is where Wikipedia would be likely to send any HOWTO
articles or software manuals to through the deletion and transwiki
process.


> When I started I expected vandalism to be the largest problem but
> to my surprise that was not the case. That was then but things have
> changed. Vandalism is rapidly increasing and reverts are not always
> able to handle this properly anymore. Some examples:

The growth of vandalism, I think, is partly a consequence of
Wikipedia's quick and phenomenal growth, large size, and partly a
consequence of allowing editing by anonymous users (including AOL
users... vandals keep coming back, and blocks for serious vandalism
are usually made for at most 24 hours, allowing the smarter persistent
vandals to return easily).

Last I heard, from the  database dumps of Wikipedia available for
download, that of the article histories was 22Gb, and the database
dump for current article pages was around 1 Gb. I tend to think
Wikipedia is just way too big and has a lot to deal with that TLDP
doesn't... :)

If TLDP authors were to use a Wiki, it might make sense to require
users register (and take slightly stronger measures against vandalism)

A wiki is certainly an easy way to submit changes,
lowing the burden to submit.

Release process is another matter (it would
seem to make sense to lock on to a specific 
version of each article, and not update the 
official release until any discussions are hashed out and changes are
marked 'ok' by a specifically trusted editor)

["Marking 'ok'" might even mean just copying 
that version of the text to an entirely different system.]

> Cleanup:
> occationally a page is marked with a cleanup tag,
> "This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher
> standard of quality." Unfortunately the reason is often not
> clearly stated, nor the condition for removal of the tag. Also

Well, such a tag is part of a suggestion or request 
for cleanup, or is in general.

If the reason for cleanup not obvious and it wasn't stated, then I
believe anyone can just boldly
remove the cleanup tag on Wikipedia.. if the 
discussion on  the talk page hadn't brought up 
any cleanup to be done.

> pseudonymous users have removed the tag entirely without due
> process (ref. ISO9000).

Due process.. ?  Err, "be bold" is their Wiki way,
with some exceptions some due process 
would not and should not be required.

Processes often accumulate, which they 
sometimes call Instruction Creep, they like
to keep as few processes as possible, so
at most it would be "discuss the change if
it proves to be controversial"

[After all, no due process would have been
required to add the tag, right? :)]

> Deletions:
> there is a group of self stated deletionists rampaging through
> Wikipedia, attempting some kind of textual darwinism.

Yes, there are constant deletionist V.S. 
inclusionists who are both much more extreme
than the consensus.

And deletions have a point, and an encyclopedia
does not need to have an article for every 
blogger who just came by and wanted to be
featured in an article.

> There were 2 votes to keep and 1 for cleanup versus 2 for transwiki
> yet the decision ended up for transwiki.

''Votes for Deletion'' is of course a misnomer,
on Wikipedia, votes are closed by an admin who
is supposed to be trusted by the community.
he/she reads the discussion and decides which 
points which votes to give the most weight to;
the discussion is supposed to be considered 
more important than the "Delete" or "Keep" 
choice.

Of course it varies, depending on who closes
the vote, and the Wikipedians know that the
Vfd process is not ideal.  Several proposals
on Wikipedia were being discussed to reform
the process.

> later on. Unfortunately it is hard to locate the version that
> was the one that was featured.

True, the current release of the MediaWiki 
software does not currently  provide them a 
means to clearly mark the proper versions that 
retained the featured status.

> This is missing. Known good (enough) and featured articles should
> be baselined and be easily accessible. This is important for TLDP
> when running off versions for mirroring or CD inclusion.

Yes, I believe  for Wikipedia 1.0  which would be designed to be
suitable for release to CD or in print, people have proposed there
that they add a  capability to their software to identify the "latest
stable version" of an article.

I think what you are describing is just the same problem.. I assume
they will solve it -- I am just not certain how high a priority they
consider it or how quickly a way of setting a baseline for an article
will be available.

> On Googling for articles I often find copies at commersial sites
> that takes the opportunity to fill the pages with advertising.

Does it really matter that they do this? They are acting as mirrors
and spreading the content further, which is arguably a service, and
increases the recognition of the document, though I suppose they are
taking advantage of others' work to enrich themselves (in a way).

It's part of the disadvantage of releasing anything under free
licenses...  by the same token, if you make a web server program and
release it as free software, some big company can run their website on
it, and have it serve their advertising, heh.

Not all TLDP articles are released under the 
GNU Free Documentation license, which
could make things hard to deal with in a Wiki
environment, where sometimes content should
pass between articles --

you might almost need to setup a separate
Wiki for each distinct license articles use
(eww)

-- 
-Mysid

Mysid wrote:

> On 8/14/05, Stein Gjoen ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
>>Discussion on wikifying TLDP works started quite some time ago
>>
> 
>>         Wikipedia in its current incarnation with software and
>>         processes are in my opinion not suitable for the TLDP.
>>
> 
> Did you consider that the kind of documents TLDP makes are
> incompatible with the kind that Wikipedia makes, because most TLDP
> materials would be offtopic on Wikipedia, and there are many
> fundamental differences between an encyclopedia article and a
> howto/etc?


I know that. What I was looking for was system, processes and
a wiki with high traffic. For that I felt Wikipedia was more
suitable then Wikibooks.

[snip]


>>When I started I expected vandalism to be the largest problem but
>>to my surprise that was not the case. That was then but things have
>>changed. Vandalism is rapidly increasing and reverts are not always
>>able to handle this properly anymore. Some examples:
> 
> The growth of vandalism, I think, is partly a consequence of
> Wikipedia's quick and phenomenal growth, large size, and partly a
> consequence of allowing editing by anonymous users (including AOL
> users... vandals keep coming back, and blocks for serious vandalism
> are usually made for at most 24 hours, allowing the smarter persistent
> vandals to return easily).


That is my impression too and also the reason I wanted to
try out a high traffic wiki. I am unsure Wikipedia scales
with volume and vandals.

[snip]


> If TLDP authors were to use a Wiki, it might make sense to require
> users register (and take slightly stronger measures against vandalism)


Pseudonymous users are also a problem. Also registering
goes against the spirit of wikis, moreso verifying users.

[snip]

> Release process is another matter (it would
> seem to make sense to lock on to a specific 
> version of each article, and not update the 
> official release until any discussions are hashed out and changes are
> marked 'ok' by a specifically trusted editor)
> 
> ["Marking 'ok'" might even mean just copying 
> that version of the text to an entirely different system.]


This is why I earlier suggested a side-by-side solution
with one fixed pane with a HOWTO and the other pane with
wiki style comments. As mentioned earlier such setups
have been used for creating standards.

>>Cleanup:
>>occationally a page is marked with a cleanup tag,
>>"This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher
>>standard of quality." Unfortunately the reason is often not
>>clearly stated, nor the condition for removal of the tag. Also
> 
> Well, such a tag is part of a suggestion or request 
> for cleanup, or is in general.


I don't quite understand the sentence above.

> If the reason for cleanup not obvious and it wasn't stated, then I
> believe anyone can just boldly
> remove the cleanup tag on Wikipedia.. if the 
> discussion on  the talk page hadn't brought up 
> any cleanup to be done.


Which is what I mean by missing process.

>>pseudonymous users have removed the tag entirely without due
>>process (ref. ISO9000).
> 
> Due process.. ?  Err, "be bold" is their Wiki way,
> with some exceptions some due process 
> would not and should not be required.


In that case boldness means one could dispose of
such tags entirely. After all articles are supposed
to be in a constant state of improvement.

> Processes often accumulate, which they 
> sometimes call Instruction Creep, they like
> to keep as few processes as possible, so
> at most it would be "discuss the change if
> it proves to be controversial"
> 
> [After all, no due process would have been
> required to add the tag, right? :)]


Process doesn't have to be complicated, just a statement
on why and what to clean up and what it takes to remove
the tag. Such a tag could have been useful to readers of
the article to exercise extra caution.

>>Deletions:
>>there is a group of self stated deletionists rampaging through
>>Wikipedia, attempting some kind of textual darwinism.
>>
> 
> Yes, there are constant deletionist V.S. 
> inclusionists who are both much more extreme
> than the consensus.


Excessive inclusionism adds noise.
Excessive deletionism deletes also signal.

> And deletions have a point, and an encyclopedia
> does not need to have an article for every 
> blogger who just came by and wanted to be
> featured in an article.


A useless article would not cause problems since it would
not turn up when people are browsing through the contants.
Deleting a useful article on spurious basis is a problem.
There is a case of attempted deletion of an article on
Danny O'Brian simply because he also blogs. Attempt was
made by user Bloghate whose contempt for bloggers seems to
have clouded rational thinking. His rampaging deletionism
earned him a permanent blocking but damage is probably done.
I have not seen a process to rescue pages deleted by such
people.

>>There were 2 votes to keep and 1 for cleanup versus 2 for transwiki
>>yet the decision ended up for transwiki.
> 
> ''Votes for Deletion'' is of course a misnomer,
> on Wikipedia, votes are closed by an admin who
> is supposed to be trusted by the community.
> he/she reads the discussion and decides which 
> points which votes to give the most weight to;
> the discussion is supposed to be considered 
> more important than the "Delete" or "Keep" 
> choice.


I would, at the very least, expect a rationale to
be stated.

> Of course it varies, depending on who closes
> the vote, and the Wikipedians know that the
> Vfd process is not ideal.  Several proposals
> on Wikipedia were being discussed to reform
> the process.


This is an important issue; Slashdot styled "moderation"
would leave TLDP content wiped out within weeks, save for
the funny one. I guess the Tea-HOWTO would have been
brought in. The importance of a decision process cannot
be overstated. We had to remove HOWTOs in the past. It
did take some time but it was done with great care.

>>later on. Unfortunately it is hard to locate the version that
>>was the one that was featured.
> 
> True, the current release of the MediaWiki 
> software does not currently  provide them a 
> means to clearly mark the proper versions that 
> retained the featured status.
> 
> 
>>This is missing. Known good (enough) and featured articles should
>>be baselined and be easily accessible. This is important for TLDP
>>when running off versions for mirroring or CD inclusion.
>>
> 
> Yes, I believe  for Wikipedia 1.0  which would be designed to be
> suitable for release to CD or in print, people have proposed there
> that they add a  capability to their software to identify the "latest
> stable version" of an article.
> 
> I think what you are describing is just the same problem.. I assume
> they will solve it -- I am just not certain how high a priority they
> consider it or how quickly a way of setting a baseline for an article
> will be available.


I believe this is neccessary for TLDP.

>>On Googling for articles I often find copies at commersial sites
>>that takes the opportunity to fill the pages with advertising.
> 
> Does it really matter that they do this? They are acting as mirrors
> and spreading the content further, which is arguably a service, and
> increases the recognition of the document, though I suppose they are
> taking advantage of others' work to enrich themselves (in a way).


It does matter to some here, ad infested pages have caused long
discussion in the past. Also most ads tend to distract reading.
The trouble here is that people are led to the mirror first, not
to the wiki where they can contribute.

> It's part of the disadvantage of releasing anything under free
> licenses...  by the same token, if you make a web server program and
> release it as free software, some big company can run their website on
> it, and have it serve their advertising, heh.


This is a know issue and license amendments have been proposed
without success.

> Not all TLDP articles are released under the 
> GNU Free Documentation license, which
> could make things hard to deal with in a Wiki
> environment, where sometimes content should
> pass between articles --
> 
> you might almost need to setup a separate
> Wiki for each distinct license articles use
> (eww)


Licensing and wiki is something i carefully avoided discussing
since any thread on licensing tends to drag on for ages with no
resolution in sight. I hope this thread can avoid those issues
and rather consentrate on software, processes and what TLDP
requires. We should shape the tools to our needs, not bend to
the peculiarities of the tools.

Proper processes can also help us set up quality assurance.
Still, I hope that processes and guidelines should remain
simple and useful rather than ritualistic. The same goes for
document preambles.


Regards,
    Stein Gjoen

Stein Gjoen wrote:

> contributing to Wikipedia in this investigation and have taken
> the opportunity to add links to TLDP where relevant and not
> spammy. Checking my logs I see people follow these. I hope more
> can find the time to add such links where appropriate.

I suggested mikimedia because it have proven to be robusr, 
and the wikipedia story is there to poove it, also it's 
largely spread and so it's syntax largely known.

this don't mean we must use it like wikipedia do.

I think personnaly that only the volunteers authors should 
have they HOWTO set in the wiki and that they must be added 
in the buraucrats so they can at will protect (or not) the 
HOWTO page (in that case, the discuss page will be used for 
the purpose it is named for :-).

jdd

jdd wrote:

> I suggested mikimedia

should read mediawiki, sorry
jdd


-- 
pour m'écrire, aller sur:
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.net
http://arvamip.free.fr

> Mysid wrote:
> >If TLDP authors were to use a Wiki, it might make sense to require
> >users register (and take slightly stronger measures against vandalism)
> 
> 
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:09:52AM +0200, Stein Gjoen wrote:
> Pseudonymous users are also a problem. Also registering
> goes against the spirit of wikis, moreso verifying users.

I would support registration and verifying users.  I think people who
write should both get credit and be accountable.  Thus it should be
known who they are.  If LDP had someone with enough time to manage a
wiki system (and likely write code for it too), and if the details of
the system were well worked out, then I would support it.  But that
doesn't seem to be the case right now.

On wikipedia, I started to read about some topics that I know about
and found too many errors.  But there is no accountability.  I tried
to correct one major error and even explained why in the discussion,
but my change was rejected.  My little experience with it hasn't been
very favorable.  Accountability is going to be hard to implement since
there should be a quick way to check on who wrote what and when.

When I read a sentence that I think is wrong, I would like to be able
to find out by clicking who wrote it and when and email the author a
note.  This is possible with howtos (unless there are joint authors).
Contacting the person who made an error can sometimes help that person
become a better writer.  First, it is punishment in a way since it
takes up the author's time and is also indirectly criticism.  The
author should appreciate this "punishment" since errors that remain in
a work are worse punishment since more people will find the error in
the future.  Second, the author may analyze how the mistake came about
and take steps to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

	 		David Lawyer

David Lawyer wrote:

> I would support registration

registration is a good thing and should be encouraged. It 
allows to know who writes and contact it

  and verifying users.

but verufying is a bad thing. we have already a discussion 
list for that. Wiki is for fast contact. When somebody have 
a problem (if not, why read a HOWTO), he can't always 
subscribe to a system, wait... doing so we loose many things 
a wiki could provide.

wiki is a system per se, with pros and cons, it must not be 
used for what it's not done.

> On wikipedia, I started to read about some topics that I know about
> and found too many errors.  But there is no accountability.  I tried
> to correct one major error and even explained why in the discussion,
> but my change was rejected.

I have never had problem to edit wikipedia? never ask for 
permission though (nor did it very often), but remember: 
tldp wiki will only be a _very small_ subset of tlp, NOT the 
only way to read HOWTO's!!!

> When I read a sentence that I think is wrong, I would like to be able
> to find out by clicking who wrote it

history is made for that (not always handy though)

> author should appreciate this "punishment" since errors that remain in

I don't think authors like any kind of punisment and we 
should not allow this. On mediawiki, anybody (hence the 
authors also) can be warned if a choosen page is edited. and 
then if he wants go and see what was chaged.

I really greatly appreciate that: my english is far from 
beeing as good as it should and my articles are frequently 
edited and I'm glad of this. Most edits are so small I don't 
worry about them before making a major edit.

jdd

-- 
pour m'écrire, aller sur:
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.net
http://arvamip.free.fr

jdd wrote:

> David Lawyer wrote:
> 
>> I would support registration
> 
> registration is a good thing and should be encouraged. It allows to know 
> who writes and contact it
> 
>  and verifying users.


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.

> but verufying is a bad thing. we have already a discussion list for 
> that. Wiki is for fast contact. When somebody have a problem (if not, 
> why read a HOWTO), he can't always subscribe to a system, wait... doing 
> so we loose many things a wiki could provide.
> 
> wiki is a system per se, with pros and cons, it must not be used for 
> what it's not done.


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.

If the purpose is just for fast contact, commenting or discussion
a plain web forum is sufficient.

>> On wikipedia, I started to read about some topics that I know about
>> and found too many errors.  But there is no accountability.  I tried
>> to correct one major error and even explained why in the discussion,
>> but my change was rejected.
> 
> I have never had problem to edit wikipedia? never ask for permission 
> though (nor did it very often), but remember: tldp wiki will only be a 
> _very small_ subset of tlp, NOT the only way to read HOWTO's!!!


The process of editing is simple but that is also the trivial part.
When others revert your input due to being misinformed, vandals or
political correct the editing process is problematic. Wikipedia
suffers many edit wars, as this phenomenon has become known as.

Anyway we have to first agree on purpose and use before deciding on
implementation. Tools should fit TLDP, notthe other way round.

>> When I read a sentence that I think is wrong, I would like to be able
>> to find out by clicking who wrote it
> 
> history is made for that (not always handy though)


True, you only get a pseudonym or IP number.

>> author should appreciate this "punishment" since errors that remain in
> 
> I don't think authors like any kind of punisment and we should not allow 
> this. On mediawiki, anybody (hence the authors also) can be warned if a 
> choosen page is edited. and then if he wants go and see what was chaged.


Why not? Wikipedia has found some has to be permanently banned
and I have already pointed out a case where someone admitted to
creatig a new pseudonym. Continuously reverting gonzo editing
is a major risk for wasting time better spent on editing a more
traditional HOWTO.

> I really greatly appreciate that: my english is far from beeing as good 
> as it should and my articles are frequently edited and I'm glad of this. 
> Most edits are so small I don't worry about them before making a major 
> edit.

Good English is not even sufficient when it comes to edit wars between
American English and British English spelling, a total waste of time.

Regards,
    Stein Gjoen

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

> 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.

> 
> If the purpose is just for fast contact, commenting or discussion
> a plain web forum is sufficient.

it's a very different media

> 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.

actual ldp seems very old fashionned, do you know ?

>> history is made for that (not always handy though)

I use to let notes on the discuss page of the editor (often 
a thanks :-)

  > 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 :-)

> 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 :-).

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.

jdd


-- 
pour m'écrire, aller sur:
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.net
http://arvamip.free.fr

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