Developper's reference as a wiki (was: Debian Women Wikis)
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 09:11:38PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:34:45PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > > Marc Haber <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:52:05 +0200, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > >> http://women.debian.org/wiki/English/MaintainerScripts states,
> > > >>while discussing the purging of a fully installed package
> > > >>("Removing and Purging", Removal+Purge of foo (Installed)), that
> > > >
> > > > This is important information I would never have found due to the lack
> > > > of knowledge that the Debian Women project has her own wiki.
> > > >
> > > > May I ask why information this important is not on the main Debian
> > > > wiki, wiki.debian.org?
> > >
> > > Or why it is in a Wiki at all? A wiki is fine for collecting
> > > information with input from many people. But once it's settled, and
> > > this one mainly seems to be, I think it should be integrated in the
> > > existing infrastructure, e.g. the developers' reference.
> > Or to put it the other way, why isn't the developer's reference a wiki? :)
> > I think it's more likely to evolve that way.
> > --
> Hi Sylvain,
> I think that is a great idea but I'd have a few caveats: what if someone
> put malicous code in a page (e.g. the equivilant of 'rm -rf /') and a
> user damaged their system by running it? The current process is not as
> easily updated but its has a high quality review which is good. I'd hope
> for a solution that lets people add new content but maybe have it not
> show up immediatley and have it reviewed like 'sponsored uploads' thus
> ensuring that it meets Debian standards. IIRC there are folks who are
> responsible for Debian web content and Debian user documentation --
> maybe have them involved?
I wonder whether this process is the reason why the information is on
wiki.debian.org in the first place.
This also means that untrusted copy/paste-able code will be put on a
Debian wiki independently of the devref's update process (users
hopelessly like to bypass inconvenient security policies ;)).
Moderation is good indeed. Wikis only suggest distributed 'a
posteriori' moderation instead of centralised 'a priori' moderation.
However, I don't know of a good tool to wiki-ize a document while
keeping to abilities to distribute it offline. CVS had its Texinfo
manual published as a Mediawiki (http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/) - I
wonder how/whether they merge it back to Texinfo. Another option may
be a public repository like UnCommon Web's - it's for code though