Re: Building up a new *user* wiki!

[Amitai Schlair <schmonz%schmonz.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:51:37PM -0500, Amitai Schlair wrote:
>>
>> It's unfortunate but true that today, the fastest way to let NetBSD
>> users contribute to a wiki is to set one up for the purpose. Letting
>> them contribute to wiki.netbsd.org will take technical work, of
>> course, as will the eventual migration of the content.
>
> However, lest expectations be set incorrectly: as a general rule, we do
> not name systems in .NetBSD.ORG if they are not owned and operated by
> the NetBSD Foundation.

Yes, I should have made that more clear. This new (and putatively
temporary) wiki would be run elsewhere by elsewhom, and would be as
unofficial as wiki.netbsd.se had been.

My suggestion is merely my (well-informed) personal opinion about how
to do so most constructively. If our goals are indeed aligned, I hope
it's taken seriously.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM, haad <haaaad%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:

> I think that we should use ikiwiki or gollum both don't use database for
> storage and can render markdown. Which is used at wiki.netbsd.org.

Markdown doesn't tell the whole content-formatting story: pages
commonly contain ikiwiki-specific directives as well, and this is part
of what contributors ought to be getting familiar with. So to my mind,
a Markdown-based wiki that isn't ikiwiki itself is a tradeoff whose
purpose I don't understand (again, assuming our goals are the same).

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Julio Merino <jmmv%julipedia.org@localhost> 
wrote:

> So... serious question: why not help schmonz get wiki.netbsd.org ready to
> where it needs to be?

It's a good question. The work required is to understand the
constraints of being an official TNF service hosted by TNF resources,
and write Perl to extend ikiwiki to let non-TNF members contribute
content under these constraints. It's a tough job; my first attempt
meant well, but wasn't robust enough and got thrown out. As always,
I'd welcome help from someone who's willing to take on this kind of
challenge. Otherwise, I'll get to it when I can, and would be happy to
see the right sort of user wiki spring up in the meantime.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Julian Fagir <gnrp%komkon2.de@localhost> wrote:

> And, another point I really dislike about the targeted wiki solution is the
> differentiation between developers (creating the content) and users posting
> comments.

Unless someone comes up with a cleverer approach than mine, this will
remain necessary.

> I'm sure this will generate a large lack of commits, and user articles will
> stay in the comments forever. If you don't want users moderating the content,
> developers will have to spend effort and time in the wiki.
> Plus, I think it's not enough credits for users spending time in writing
> articles, but ending up on a discussion page.

I expect developers to get more involved once the wiki has been
announced as production-ready, and I expect all of us together to
settle on decent attribution practices for developers to follow when
incorporating user-submitted content.

> But as long as you cannot say that the new user wiki will be up and running
> at a specific date (and stick to that date) not too far in the future, I
> consider setting up a second wiki as the best solution.

I agree with you, as long as the second wiki is implemented the right
way, and reiterate my offer to help you do that. :-)