-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/12/2016 03:25 AM, Pete Travis wrote: > On Feb 10, 2016 16:58, "Jeff Fearn" <jfearn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/02/16 20:22, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:20:10AM +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: >>>> You are comparing places where communities create content to a place communities publish content. >>> >>> >>> Sure, fair enough. And, yeah, kudos to Ubuntu community docs too. >>> >>>>> a forum -- and Ask Fedora is less successful because it _is_ a forum which happens to have a UI which mimics the surface-level appearance > of >>>>> Stack Exchange. >>>> Can you name any sites for generating documentation content that is more, or even as, successful as the Arch or Ubuntu wikis? >>> >>> Well, again, Stack Exchange. Take a look at http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=frequent >> >> IMHO SE is just a web forum with voting and some fancy CSS, so I guess I +1 that :) >> >>>> What kind of docs are the best for Fedora users? IMO the majority of content would be short articles, straight to the point, simple language, with some basic examples. >>> >>> +1 to both the question and answer here. That makes +2, I guess. :) >> >> Cheers, Jeff. >> >> -- > > There are three factors to consider here: ease of contribution, ease of collaboration, and the quality of the resulting copy. Without a well established collaborative workflow, a very low barrier to contribution > leads to low quality documentation. We have seen this with both the Fedora wiki and with Ask Fedora. StackExchange works because users aggressively cull out dupes and poor answers, and that is not happening with > Fedora's sites. There is already a general expectation to not be redundant or incorrect on these platforms, and IMO that expectation is not being met. Providing the same kind of platform to the same user base with > the same expectations will likely produce the same result. Yes, if you don't have a *culture* of gardening the content then *any* tool will not be sufficient to have gardened content. > This is why I advocate a git and pull request oriented workflow, and a solution built around that workflow. Exactly, this is the problem. You are advocating a specific tool and not a work flow. There are tonnes of existing apps that have write, review, publish work flow built in, many of them are wikis. The fact that a lot of sites choose not to use those work flows doesn't mean the work flows don't work if you enable them. > If you have proven that you produce quality work, it should be easy to publish directly. If you have not, it should be easy to submit those drive-by contributions for review and easy to review them. Adding someone > to a FAS group so they can publish directly is not an arduous task, And it is not one of the barriers to entry that we have been talking about. > and with PRs demonstrating the efficacy of the contributors work, it is not difficult to decide someone should be able to do that. A solution without this gating will inevitably lead to us having this conversation > again. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs https://www.drupal.org/project/workbench etc, etc Cheers, Jeff. - -- Jeff Fearn Senior Software Engineer PnT - DevOps - Development Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW4JqvAAoJELs3R4zxGZvKwg0H/12D3dWupGw0h/MsJrMuOYby Y1O+YyzJ+N/oHAy5MHgOYRuzPmVseGD6Z+//oSSxEI61pwidyWMOexPrdY5Zn/03 0QJFwpTKWztzeH1BbZcrVMBDtIbwYlvbM5rBiZtuKIgFFuA9fRpq33Zj52UD32WT TL+d2dn6d/bz20PbAopTY7u0WwWZndgHpHXW7PbqP/up+hTKLf8RDwD6dw/YDaXO 8Xyw6lRXF04NNroAheYBWApZoKvQtEGrv1cJs1K7bVQYC8C3d4nEdvOf1cXsjNwT /uxHtroWGI46rHH1smdJoHIPWHSObtUTGjEDEFui8LHeYifZaX4/ICOlnkQbs8I= =yWzJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
