Forum > Documentation (Maintaining -)
Wiki Strategy
af0815:
In the past 10 yrs I have found discussion about the wiki and some tools like better visualization of the language parts and diffences, but this discussion are only time wasting. The existing tools for the wiki were never accepted.
And a solution over a third-party tool like git or similar is not a good way, the wiki community have some working ways, but they must be accepted.
My 2 cents
It is not a problem of manpower, it's more a acceptance problem.
Thaddy:
Well,
Ask for peer review before you edit...
I usually do that. (as with scientific entries on wikipedia itself)
Problem with our wiki is that people do stupid edits that subsequently need to be reversed. That is a pain in the back-side and often not necessary.
The quality of the current wiki is beyond editting: very low.
It would be better if peer review is required and that can be enforced.
Martin_fr:
--- Quote from: Warfley on July 01, 2023, 04:00:39 pm ---If some volunteers could just pick a wiki page thats up for review and then look at it with a given style guide, I think many could put a few minutes a day into this, and with just a few volunteers in a structured way the wiki could be cleaned up and maintained quite efficiently.
--- End quote ---
Well, the problem is to get the volunteers, rather than the process itself....
But you could always start yourself on some articles of your choice.
That would at least be some articles, rather than none.
If others want to join in, you can then see what there ideas are how to process/coordinate, and find a between them and you.
(And maybe get the existing wiki moderators involved)
The checklist is a start, but may depend on interpretation.
https://gitlab.com/Warfley/lazwiki/-/merge_requests/235
First and most important point.
- Can (and how can) the work that the author(s) put into the page be preserved.
Any removal must have tremendously good reasons, and those reasons should be established by a group (once established they can be applied by a single person, if/when there is on doubt that they fit a specific article)
--- Quote ---Does the title match the content
--- End quote ---
Is partly subjective.
--- Quote --- Is the article written neutrally
--- End quote ---
Again, I have written articles on debugging, where I recommend FpDebug. Recommendation is not neutral.
--- Quote --- Is the Article up to date
--- End quote ---
+1
But what if not?
Half the IDE help pages are outdated. But better than none. So removing is not an option.
--- Quote --- Is the Article well written (no obvious spelling or gramatical errors)
--- End quote ---
+1
Though there is a difference between "well written" and "written without spelling or grammatical mistakes" (btw, accident or pun, that your checklist has a spelling mistake in "grammatical"? ;) )
"well written" to me means: Concise, yet comprehensive. Using a language style befitting the subject. And - given the international audience - avoiding too advanced English.
--- Quote --- Is the Article unique or overlaps with existing articles
--- End quote ---
+1
Though several articles on a subject may exist, if they refer to each other. And briefly explain why both exist.
And if the don't, the solution may be to add this.
E.g.: https://wiki.freepascal.org/SVN_to_GIT_Cheatsheet#Alternative_to_this_Page
--- Quote --- Does this need to be it's own Article or would it better be incorporated into another one
--- End quote ---
Kind of duplicates the above point
--- Quote --- Is the Article adding value
--- End quote ---
Highly subjective
--- Quote --- Are all links still reachable
--- End quote ---
+1
--- Quote --- Is there an english version of the article
--- End quote ---
What if not?
--- Quote --- Are all other languages up to date with the english version
--- End quote ---
+1
Needs some form of easy to add marker (some template)
--- Quote --- For third party packages and tools: Is it clearly marked as such
--- End quote ---
ok
--- Quote --- For packages and third party tools: Is the License noted
For third party packages and tools: Is an Author named/linked
For third party packages and tools: Is there a link for further information
For third party packages and tools: Is it still actively maintained
--- End quote ---
if not, the info may still be of interest
--- Quote --- Are all categories sensible
--- End quote ---
ok, but subjective
--- Quote --- Is it tagged with the language category
--- End quote ---
Do we have a documentation of all the templates (auto category, language bar ....) that are added, and what they exactly do, ....?
Martin_fr:
Btw, "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be a criteria, at least at some point, eventually.
But, before that it should be refined, and reviewed by a group of different people. Using a good amount of samples from the wiki to write detailed guidelines....
Not sure, if worth the effort...
And if not, then only used with greatest care, and still instead of having pre-approved guidelines, get a peer review on the opinion for each article, when and if you deem an article to fall into such a category.
trev:
The short answer is that the state of the Wiki boils down to there being insufficient people writing new content and, more importantly, maintaining the existing content.
Foreign language pages are generally (exceptions are probably the German and Russian pages) in an even worse state than the English pages because there are even fewer people contributing to them.
I spent just over two years writing, re-organising and updating Wiki content on a daily basis, although due to other commitments I've not been very active for the last year.
Apart from redesigning the Wiki home page with the agreement of the FPC and Lazarus teams to feature Topic Portals, the vast majority of my work was in writing new macOS Portal https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Portal:Mac content, with diversions to reorganise and update the https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Projects_using_Free_Pascal pages, translate the German pages on ARM https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/ARM_Embedded_Tutorials and AVR https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/AVR_Embedded_Tutorials microcontrollers, create the FreeBSD Portal https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Portal:FreeBSD, create the New Users Portal https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Portal:New_Users, create the HowTo Demos Portal https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Portal:HowTo_Demos, update and reorganise https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_the_Free_Pascal_Compiler**, update and reorganise https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus**, update and categorise the Lazarus IDE pages https://wiki.freepascal.org/Main_menu, and categorise the uncategorised Wiki pages.
**I had help from David Bannon who did most of the the Linux installation content and WP for the Windows installation content.
I disagree that the content should be created in git or other rcs before being added to the Wiki - placing such barriers to contributions would only stop users from contributing which is not something we can afford. The same goes for any suggestion to enforce "guidelines" for contributions.
As to possible missing "make" content for Windows, if it is still viable you can retrieve it from the history pages - yes, the history pages are very necessary and I disagree that any should ever be deleted. They do no harm, but come in handy when you least expect it.
As my background was in writing legal reference works for a multi-domestic law publisher before pivoting to programming, I trust that the original content I have written for the Wiki is understandable and useful despite my not having followed the any guidelines other than common sense :)
Last, but not least, remember that a Wiki is "a website or online resource that can be edited by multiple users".
The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page