Re: aims of the wiki?
Hi!
On 19/08/25 17:39, Andrew Sayers wrote:
Any given reader would see them as redundantly covering the same topic,
at most one of them successfully. So it would be tempting to merge them.
But in fact they each address a slightly different audience,
so IMHO they should all stay and people should be directed to
the most appropriate resource for them.
I am not familiar with all of those docs, but I want to say that I agree
that those are different documents because they have different aims.
That is not what I was referring to, when I talked about redundancy.
To give you an example I will link to one of the very few times I
deleted something from the wiki:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines?action=diff&rev1=21&rev2=22
was a verbatim copy ot the DFSG one can find in the website, in the same
page where one could also find Debian Social Contract.
https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Having the *exact* same thing twice is only a way to have 2 things to
keep updated (not so much the DFSG that are not a dynamic content)
instead of 1. (BTW now someone can feel free to put them back in the
wiki page :)
Going back to the "wiki aims vs. our aims" issue - I would hate to think
we had to choose between Praveen's series and mine, but I would love for
the Packaging portal to direct users towards the right resource for them.
So instead of always aiming to avoid duplicate content, it would be better
to develop a range of tools (portals, navboxes etc.) to capture the range
of relationships between pages.
Absolutely!! For instance, in this case, I think a page that points to
the different available docs would be good.
I think also that a page that make a summary of one of those docs, or a
snapshot of one of those docs and puts it in the wiki, so that whenever
the original changes, someone has to update the wiki copy too, would be
a bad idea, instead.
But again, if some volunteer wants to do it, is it fair to stop them?
I do like your view about how to - if I understood correctly - instead
of deleting/policying the content, the wiki team would be more involved
in organizing, tagging, cathegorizing the content.
I am not sure I fully understand it at the moment, though. I am afraid I
can't see how not deleting/merging stuff is not gonna recreate the
chaotic structure of the current wiki (which by the way it's maybe
painted in a worse light than it deserves).
A good day to all,
beatrice
Reply to: