discuss: LDP Process (was: Software-RAID-HOWTO)
Subject:
Re: [discuss] LDP Process (was: Software-RAID-HOWTO)
From:
####@####.####
Date:
23 May 2008 02:19:12 +0100
Message-Id: <432cd8760805221823n7e7b5634ka76d0afcc630bc43@mail.gmail.com>
I'm back from vacation. Apparently I missed quite a bit?
Although I use them frequently, wikis still make me uneasy when I am
learning a new concept. The nice thing about wikis and the bad thing
about static documents is that when I come across an error or a
particularly bad piece of prose I can change it without having to hunt
down the authors and file a long form explaining the problem. It
tends to work well with my chaotic workflow pattern.
A few things still worry me about wikis, which is why I still need
convincing that they are appropriate for the LDP. First, wikis tend
to be cross-linked heavily which, at least for my feeble mind, makes
it very difficult to carve out a reading path which will reassure me
that I don't miss anything and that information progresses logically.
When I am learning something new, I find a single stable narrative far
more comforting.
Secondly, I like downloading a document to read offline - particularly
onto my Palm. However, I understand that some faculty, I hope an
obvious one, compiles the wiki into a single-like document.
Finally, I like having documents peer-reviewed and polished before
shipping. Back in the early days of the Internet, my grade-school
teachers strongly discouraged using the Internet for research because
anybody could write their own page and give themselves whatever
credentials they liked. They, along with me, preferred books, which
were nicely bound, edited for grammar, accuracy, and style, and
generally endorsed by a team of people. Granted, there are a lot of
books with typos and outrageously false information in them, but they
end to be the exceptions rather than the rule.
Almost every wiki I've seen that tries to duplicate a book is missing
content. They also tend to have an inconsistent style and odd
inaccuracy from too many hands working on it without talking to one
another. In short, wikis still need someone to keep all of the little
hands from ripping the wiki apart.
At least, that's how I see it.
