-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 02/12/2016 03:25 AM, Pete Travis wrote:
On Feb 10, 2016 16:58, "Jeff Fearn"
<jfearn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/02/16 20:22, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:20:10AM +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
>>> You are comparing places where communities create content to a place
communities publish content.
>>
>>
>> Sure, fair enough. And, yeah, kudos to Ubuntu community docs too.
>>
>>>> a forum -- and Ask Fedora is less successful because it _is_ a forum
which happens to have a UI which mimics the surface-level appearance
of
>>>> Stack Exchange.
>>> Can you name any sites for generating documentation content that is more, or
even as, successful as the Arch or Ubuntu wikis?
>>
>> Well, again, Stack Exchange. Take a look at
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=frequent
>
> IMHO SE is just a web forum with voting and some fancy CSS, so I guess I +1 that :)
>
>>> What kind of docs are the best for Fedora users? IMO the majority of content
would be short articles, straight to the point, simple language, with some basic
examples.
>>
>> +1 to both the question and answer here. That makes +2, I guess. :)
>
> Cheers, Jeff.
>
> --
There are three factors to consider here: ease of contribution, ease of collaboration,
and the quality of the resulting copy. Without a well established collaborative workflow,
a very low barrier to contribution
leads to low quality documentation. We have seen this with both the Fedora wiki and with
Ask Fedora. StackExchange works because users aggressively cull out dupes and poor
answers, and that is not happening with
Fedora's sites. There is already a general expectation to not be redundant or
incorrect on these platforms, and IMO that expectation is not being met. Providing the
same kind of platform to the same user base with
the same expectations will likely produce the same result.
Yes, if you don't have a *culture* of gardening the content then *any* tool will not
be sufficient to have gardened content.
This is why I advocate a git and pull request oriented workflow, and
a solution built around that workflow.
Exactly, this is the problem. You are advocating a specific tool and not a work flow.
There are tonnes of existing apps that have write, review, publish work flow built in,
many of them are wikis. The fact that a lot of sites choose not to use those work flows
doesn't mean the work flows don't work if you
enable them.
If you have proven that you produce quality work, it should be easy
to publish directly. If you have not, it should be easy to submit those drive-by
contributions for review and easy to review them. Adding someone
to a FAS group so they can publish directly is not an arduous task,
And it is not one of the barriers to entry that we have been talking about.
and with PRs demonstrating the efficacy of the contributors work, it
is not difficult to decide someone should be able to do that. A solution without this
gating will inevitably lead to us having this conversation
again.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs
https://www.drupal.org/project/workbench
etc, etc
Cheers, Jeff.
- --
Jeff Fearn
Senior Software Engineer
PnT - DevOps - Development
Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW4JqvAAoJELs3R4zxGZvKwg0H/12D3dWupGw0h/MsJrMuOYby
Y1O+YyzJ+N/oHAy5MHgOYRuzPmVseGD6Z+//oSSxEI61pwidyWMOexPrdY5Zn/03
0QJFwpTKWztzeH1BbZcrVMBDtIbwYlvbM5rBiZtuKIgFFuA9fRpq33Zj52UD32WT
TL+d2dn6d/bz20PbAopTY7u0WwWZndgHpHXW7PbqP/up+hTKLf8RDwD6dw/YDaXO
8Xyw6lRXF04NNroAheYBWApZoKvQtEGrv1cJs1K7bVQYC8C3d4nEdvOf1cXsjNwT
/uxHtroWGI46rHH1smdJoHIPWHSObtUTGjEDEFui8LHeYifZaX4/ICOlnkQbs8I=
=yWzJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----