www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From tobr...@transolutions.net (O'brien, Tim)
Subject RE: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions about wiki
Date Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:51:00 GMT
I have no idea of what the discussion is at community@, I'm not allowed to
subscribe to that list.

Again, I need to stress that I have no hostility towards anyone here.  This
is a good discussion, I'm sorry if people felt that I was being over
dramatic.  I'm responding, but I don't think that my email will make it
through to the community list.  I tried to subscribe this morning, but I
don't think I'm allowed.

"J. Pietschmann" writes:
> 1. Collaborate effort to write and improve documentation, tutorials,
>     examples etc. There should be someone feeling responsible for
>     housekeeping, in particular static, stable bits should be moved
>     out of the wiki and merged into the regular website from time to
>     time, because a) reliable references need static content and b) wikis
>     *will* attract abusers sooner or later.

ApacheWiki has already generated new content specifically in the area of FAQ
and informal documentation - this is what it is best for.

I hope no one considers me an abuser, if so, I apologize.  As for abusers, I
had concerns initially about how Wiki would fit into the overall ASF
meritocracy.  I actually was the only one to raise questions about
moderation and legality - Andrew responded to these by pointing by at Ward
Cunningham and Wikipedia.  I agree that there is the chance for abusers, but
I also think that Wiki is proof of a somewhat remarkable level of self
regulation.  I propose that ApacheWiki follow Wikipedia's policy of

> Note that quite 
> a few of the pro/con discussion pages in the Apache Wiki are 
> already somewhat messy, too messy for my taste and for the 
> short time they are in existence.

Agreed, pro/con discussions can get very messy.  WhyUseSubversion and
WhyNotUseSubversion were created with a very strict debating format.  Those
pages were created in response to a discussion on infrastructure@ that was
generating a large amount of traffic.  I believe that there is a point where
very long mail threads can be effectively supported by an informal Wiki
debate - but Wiki is no substitute.

Now those pages are definitely not as full and reasoned as the email thread,
but the page will evolve, and I'll bet you anything that eventually somebody
out there will create a page with some instructions about how to access ASF
Subversion instance......

> This is likely to get worse, as discussing on a whiteboard requires a lot
> discipline; there is always an urge to post counter arguments 
> right in place, and to "correct" other people's arguments by 
> editing, which in turn might be taken personally.

You assume that with more openness, the Wiki will tend toward chaos.  I
don't see that happening, I think that people have a learning curve with
Wiki, and that people will make mistakes.

Tim O'Brien 

> There is still the problem that open discussion forums are 
> occasionally of real value. A web based forum (like phpBB, 
> for illustration) could serve this purpose:
> - no subscription, no push, no overflowing mailboxes, look at it when
>    you have time
> - easy to moderate, if necessary
> - easy public access, if necessary
> - anonymous posts are possible, if necessary, without much increased
>    risk of spamming
> Depending on the software, comfortable search, mail list 
> gateways and other goodies are available.
> J.Pietschmann

View raw message