Em 23/03/2016 5:39, ProgAndy escreveu:
Am 23.03.2016 um 15:16 schrieb chaos Feng:
On Monday 21 March 2016 12:22:30 David C. Rankin wrote:
Archdevs,
What is the current policy for having wiki-contributions
re-written? I
have been a wiki-contributor for years, I've more than 28 years
Unix/Linux
experience, I am an attorney, a registered professional engineer, and
I
have spent years doing technical writing for NASA MOD and Space
Flight
Operations -- I know technical writing. Over the past year or so it
seems
like every wiki contribution made is re-written to the point that the
immediacy of the needed information is lost, is replaced by a link,
or the
contribution is reworded in a bewildering manner.
Under what criteria does this take place? It has gotten to the
point where
you just get tired of helping -- why bother?
Under the current system, the pages are slowly becoming
less-useful rather
than more useful as more and more information is chopped out of pages
or
replaced by links to 3rd-party pages that may (or may not) be there
tomorrow.
When I first began using Arch in '09, the pages were written such
that you
could fully-complete whatever task the page addressed without
bouncing
around from page-to-page hunting for all the pieces of the puzzle.
That is
no longer the case.
Don't get me wrong, the Arch-wiki pages are still by far the most
useful
of any distribution, but understanding the criteria under which this
is
taking place will help those willing to contribute determine whether
to
make a contribution or not. The goal being to keep the Arch-wiki, the
very
best that it can be. Thanks.
David,
First, sorry to make you feel your work is undermined.
There are two principles in my mind when doing Arch wiki admin work:
"Remove duplication" & "Upstream first"
1. Remove duplication
Duplication in wiki is just as bad as duplication in code. It is hard
to
maintain. When things change, usually only one location is updated and
other
places are left there out of date. When user see two sections document
the
same thing with different content, they will confuse.
So some sections in "Beginner's Guide" is moved into their own pages.
You could refer the talk page[1] to get the reson behind changes.
Hello,
Some time ago I stumbled on selective transclusions in the wikipedia
help.[1] It seems to be an extension, that allows display of a partial
article inside another article.[2] Maybe that would help to collect
the necessary information in the "Beginner's Guide"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELTRANS
[2]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion
ProgAndy
2. Upstream first
Arch wiki emphasize upstream just as Arch package emphasize upstream.
It is great that Arch Wiki could be the document for every Linux
topic. But it
is even greater if Arch wiki could be the gateway of upstream
document.
If the document is not Arch specific, we hope it is contributed to
upstream
first and link back in Arch wiki. This way, it is not only benifical
to Arch,
but also to Linux/Free software as a whole. Thus we specify below
policy:
* If the upstream documentation for the subject of your article is
well-
written and maintained, prefer just writing Arch-specific adaptations
and
linking to the official documentation for general information. [2]
The best thing I like Arch: "Arch is a distribution that acts like
just a
distributor". Arch distribute packages which stay as close as
upstream.
We also hope Arch wiki could distribute our upstreams document to Arch
user,
not just duplicate the content here.
It seems some contributors are disappoint about recent changes and I
hope
above explaination could make the change more logical. And for every
change
you do not like, please raise your concern in the Talk page[3].
Changes will
be reverted if it is resonable.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:Beginners'_guide
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Help:Style#Hypertext_metaphor
[3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Help:Discussion
Fengchao
Hi there
ProgAndy's ideia seems nice. Since it's for begginers, it could be
referencing a more detailed page and still provide short info.
But I think this situation is really complex. I wouldn't be using Arch
Linux if its configuration wasn't so malleable as it is. And I wouldn't
see how malleable it is if it wasn't the way the wiki is.
As said before, Arch is user-centred. For user-friendliness we have more
"domestic" distributions, such as Manjaro, with their own wikis, which
should be user-friendly.
And we have, in the other hand, that thing with begginers. Firstly, I
found hard to familiarize with the wiki and the distribution. And many
people doesn't have time or conditions to learn stuff. But then, why use
a distribution like Arch?
As I said, it's complicated. But, since Arch is made for users which are
willing to have a better understending of the system, I think things
should be like that. And/Or ProgAndy's idea for the begginers article.
Regards,
