[arch-general] What is the current wiki-poliicy for re-writing contributions?
sculy at riseup.net
sculy at riseup.net
Thu Mar 24 11:31:42 UTC 2016
Em 23/03/2016 5:39, ProgAndy escreveu:
> Am 23.03.2016 um 15:16 schrieb chaos Feng:
>> On Monday 21 March 2016 12:22:30 David C. Rankin wrote:
>>> What is the current policy for having wiki-contributions
>>> re-written? I
>>> have been a wiki-contributor for years, I've more than 28 years
>>> experience, I am an attorney, a registered professional engineer, and
>>> have spent years doing technical writing for NASA MOD and Space
>>> Operations -- I know technical writing. Over the past year or so it
>>> like every wiki contribution made is re-written to the point that the
>>> immediacy of the needed information is lost, is replaced by a link,
>>> or the
>>> contribution is reworded in a bewildering manner.
>>> Under what criteria does this take place? It has gotten to the
>>> point where
>>> you just get tired of helping -- why bother?
>>> Under the current system, the pages are slowly becoming
>>> less-useful rather
>>> than more useful as more and more information is chopped out of pages
>>> replaced by links to 3rd-party pages that may (or may not) be there
>>> When I first began using Arch in '09, the pages were written such
>>> that you
>>> could fully-complete whatever task the page addressed without
>>> around from page-to-page hunting for all the pieces of the puzzle.
>>> That is
>>> no longer the case.
>>> Don't get me wrong, the Arch-wiki pages are still by far the most
>>> of any distribution, but understanding the criteria under which this
>>> taking place will help those willing to contribute determine whether
>>> make a contribution or not. The goal being to keep the Arch-wiki, the
>>> best that it can be. Thanks.
>> First, sorry to make you feel your work is undermined.
>> There are two principles in my mind when doing Arch wiki admin work:
>> "Remove duplication" & "Upstream first"
>> 1. Remove duplication
>> Duplication in wiki is just as bad as duplication in code. It is hard
>> maintain. When things change, usually only one location is updated and
>> places are left there out of date. When user see two sections document
>> same thing with different content, they will confuse.
>> So some sections in "Beginner's Guide" is moved into their own pages.
>> You could refer the talk page to get the reson behind changes.
> Some time ago I stumbled on selective transclusions in the wikipedia
> help. It seems to be an extension, that allows display of a partial
> article inside another article. Maybe that would help to collect
> the necessary information in the "Beginner's Guide"
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELTRANS
>> 2. Upstream first
>> Arch wiki emphasize upstream just as Arch package emphasize upstream.
>> It is great that Arch Wiki could be the document for every Linux
>> topic. But it
>> is even greater if Arch wiki could be the gateway of upstream
>> If the document is not Arch specific, we hope it is contributed to
>> first and link back in Arch wiki. This way, it is not only benifical
>> to Arch,
>> but also to Linux/Free software as a whole. Thus we specify below
>> * If the upstream documentation for the subject of your article is
>> written and maintained, prefer just writing Arch-specific adaptations
>> linking to the official documentation for general information. 
>> The best thing I like Arch: "Arch is a distribution that acts like
>> just a
>> distributor". Arch distribute packages which stay as close as
>> We also hope Arch wiki could distribute our upstreams document to Arch
>> not just duplicate the content here.
>> It seems some contributors are disappoint about recent changes and I
>> above explaination could make the change more logical. And for every
>> you do not like, please raise your concern in the Talk page.
>> Changes will
>> be reverted if it is resonable.
>>  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:Beginners'_guide
>>  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Help:Style#Hypertext_metaphor
>>  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Help:Discussion
ProgAndy's ideia seems nice. Since it's for begginers, it could be
referencing a more detailed page and still provide short info.
But I think this situation is really complex. I wouldn't be using Arch
Linux if its configuration wasn't so malleable as it is. And I wouldn't
see how malleable it is if it wasn't the way the wiki is.
As said before, Arch is user-centred. For user-friendliness we have more
"domestic" distributions, such as Manjaro, with their own wikis, which
should be user-friendly.
And we have, in the other hand, that thing with begginers. Firstly, I
found hard to familiarize with the wiki and the distribution. And many
people doesn't have time or conditions to learn stuff. But then, why use
a distribution like Arch?
As I said, it's complicated. But, since Arch is made for users which are
willing to have a better understending of the system, I think things
should be like that. And/Or ProgAndy's idea for the begginers article.
More information about the arch-general