Re: putting wiki in shape
 

I figure we do the wiki the way all wikis are done. You make changes, and other people either leave the changes if they like them, or change them if they don't. And you can have little discussions about specific, disputed pages on the wiki talk pages of the disputed pages.

I would much rather have people post here in talk saying, "I've added this page," or "I've edited this page" so that others can go and look at the changes, rather than posting, "someone should really do something about that page!"

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

Had we recognized you as king, surely we would have resisted the invasion.

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

While I do agree 100%, I also think we should 'marshall our forces' and identify an overall strategy... precisely what I see Dave Neary doing. Note I have volunteered and promise to do more than talk.

EDIT: I just spent significant time navigating links through the wiki.

Hoo boy.

I daresay it's in the shape it's in BECAUSE so much is done on the fly without followup. In theory the wiki-standard continuous improvement by visitors sounds reasonable but in practice I suspect many are intimidated by what they encounter in ours. I know I am.

I'm betting even wikipedia started with a business plan and process map. It's much, much easier to update something that has started that way. Start with chaos, you just get more.

It needs to be fixed, though, and for now I'll start with the things I can clearly identify. But some pages are going to have to surely be cleaned up by those involved in their creation.

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

Proofreading. (Concept contains several aspects such as grammar, wikifying, verifying sources, and more; are these outlined somewhere?)

Not all Wikipedia contributors know all the rules. There are so many rules. What happens is that regulars become assume a moderator or maintainer role rather than contributor role. Much, like a manager, or what Torvalds does nowadays.

If those who contribute proofread, and others proofread their contributions, and the contributors check if they're proofread and learn from any edits, we get some kind of ball rolling.

One can proofread by just checking Recent Changes and read through them, check Random Page, or just browse.

You're right with assessment that if too many contribute chaotic it may become a mess.

However:

1) It isn't necessary one writes a complete article perfect before adding it to the wiki. It is optionable, and such procedure is not what a wiki was made for; its more akin to blogging.
2) Only if contributions are not proofread then it becomes a mess. (Complete nonsense can be removed right away.)
3) In a wiki the primary rule is IMO to not be afraid. Just. Contribute. Don't be afraid for criticism, see it as positive. And, instead of edit wars, or if someone made huge contribution you have much criticism on: communicate first.
4) If oyu do want quality assurance to make more newbie friendly then point #1 is less valid. However there is no public feedback on what has been proofread like in CVS acked-by flag. Add to that, there are several aspects to proofread and every proofreader has their own quality!!
5) Resumee, keep in mind not everyone has English as their primary language, or has experience with wiki software and/or principle, or is a hard core techie keeping a PDP-11 as decoration in stairway. Different contributors and proofreaders have different qualities.

What I don't like about Maemo wiki is that there isn't some kind of versioning/snapshots in the sense of current hardware/software. At the moment new hardware/software comes either articles are out of date, half of wiki has to start over, old data must be removed, or addendums must be made. This happened before and I don't see why it won't happen again? Or am I wrong? This is difficult to manage and makes me feel bad about wiki :(

[EDIT]We can make a list of articles which have to be proofread and state why they must be proofread. Authors/contributors can do this themselves too (e.g. say someone is aware their English isn't to write home about). Wikipedia does that too (NPOV, citation needed, blahblah). We could make a list of these requirements. We could also add them on the very page so a reader is aware.[/list]

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

please look through category basics:

http://wiki.maemo.org/Category:Basics

I've done a little and will do more later but it would be nice that other people would create pages to that category too if they have an idea what noobs need. Or what would be sensible to add for newcomers.

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

Actually, this subdomain is a FABULOUS idea -- and can hold info to the entire philosophy of open source and Maemo and how we can all get involved. I really, really, like this. I'm busy today, but if someone can start a new thread about the subdomain, I'd love to see some discussion around it.

Thanks!
Tim

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

I did what i could without input from the community or more access rights, and requested here what i could not.

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

hey all this is about syncing back from wiki to elsewhere and i dont know who manages the target data its aobot http://maemo.org/development/sdks/ma..._installation/ still refers to sdk beta sh scripts, and is not in sync with http://wiki.maemo.org/Documentation/...K_Installation this page needs some love too http://maemo.org/development/sdks/

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

It looks like most of the coordination for "getting it done" is happening in the mailing lists. :(

Relaunching the Wiki Action Group

Wiki Action Group: first task

There's more, take a look at the Community archives.

Sounds like the maemowiki action group has awoken from its slumber again.

Re: putting wiki in shape
 

Now I really wish I had been more careful in the naming when I created it. <_<