It seems to me that a lot of effort is being duplicated in the wiki and new drupal-cms-site.
I vote the wiki be killed in favour of the new official site, otherwise the contributors are going to get fed-up with doubled effort, and end users are going to get confused.
Unless the focus of the Wiki will change.
The needs of the devs and the needs of the end-users should be considered in this case.
In any event, we need to move forward, and soon. Things are turning into a bit of a mess!
It seems to me that a lot of effort is being duplicated in the wiki and new drupal-cms-site.I vote the wiki be killed in favour of the new official site, otherwise the contributors are going to get fed-up with doubled effort, and end users are going to get confused.
Unless the focus of the Wiki will change.
The needs of the devs and the needs of the end-users should be considered in this case.
In any event, we need to move forward, and soon. Things are turning into a bit of a mess!
Can the new site be so easily edited by anyone? - I wasn’t sure Drupal was set up like a wiki or not…
I guess it should be pointed out that the wiki already served as a "duplication of effort" for many things - but it was a flexible way to tie all the content together in an arbitrary way.
If Drupal will have this flexibility and it will be offered to many of the wiki contributors - then I think you have a valid point.
If on the other hand it will be restricted to only a couple of admins, then I think it will become like the original website - outdated and less-significant.
It depends on how the admins set it up. Basically, yes, it can be easily edited/added to. Sections can be added too, that can be more community oriented insofar as editing is concerned.
All these things will have to be decided upon.
In any event, all of the relevant work will likely have to be ported to the official site.
At this point in time the development of Haiku is so dynamic that maybe the official site should be dropped in favour of the wiki until R1 is released, at which point all of the docs and info regarding the OS should be more or less complete.
An official site for a completed product wouldn’t have nearly the amount of info we need, such as developer updates and status reports, etc etc.
It is worth considering either path.
The wiki seems to me to be easier to navigate than the current test site, and certainly easier to add content in a tree-like/navigable fashion.
I vote the wiki be killed in favour of the new official site, otherwise the contributors are going to get fed-up with doubled effort, and end users are going to get confused.
I think the new site is still being tested, and fixed up. Until then, Wiki contributers are helping – since it isn’t that hard to move information from the wiki to the new medium.
It seems to me that a lot of effort is being duplicated in the wiki and new drupal-cms-site.I vote the wiki be killed in favour of the new official site, otherwise the contributors are going to get fed-up with doubled effort, and end users are going to get confused.
Most of the content will be, and should be, moved into the Drupal system if the Wiki is to close. So there is no wasted effort, excusing the task of moving the data.
Sadly, I canââ¬â¢t see Drupal as being as useful to the community as a Wiki with how it is setup now ââ¬â revision history, and editing of other peoples content seems to be non-existant in the current setup.
The new site isnââ¬â¢t ready yet, so please donââ¬â¢t urge people to avoid the wiki.
[Sadly, I canââ¬â¢t see Drupal as being as useful to the community as a Wiki with how it is setup now ââ¬â revision history, and editing of other peoples content seems to be non-existant in the current setup.The new site isnââ¬â¢t ready yet, so please donââ¬â¢t urge people to avoid the wiki.
This somewhat how I feel also. I like the wiki concept for community involvement! I will admit is needs a little more moderation (like locking down the main page content, etc.) - but otherwise it is a great way to "model" content dynamically. It is a collaborative way to build content among multiple peers - and once the content is refined, it can then be made into official documentation if needed.
The wiki is like a farm, where we grow content. Even after the drupal site is completed, I hope that it continues to cultivate community content. The main site should be much more commercial. No slang, no (At least on the main pages). Even Novell has a website and a wiki. They serve different purposes. But, it will be up the M.Phipps I guess. But for now, PLEASE add content to the wiki!!! We need it for the new site!
The wiki is like a farm, where we grow content. Even after the drupal site is completed, I hope that it continues to cultivate community content. The main site should be much more commercial. No slang, no (At least on the main pages). Even Novell has a website and a wiki. They serve different purposes. But, it will be up the M.Phipps I guess. But for now, PLEASE add content to the wiki!!!! We need it for the new site!
Exactly.
People are missing the point of the wiki entirely. It’s entirely possible for it to operate in synergy with a CMS-based website. I saw Waldemar on the mailing list is advocating its removal claiming that the content isn’t very "high quality". I agree, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. I’ve referred to the guides there myself. Not to mention that to make a call on the quality of it at this point is unfair. It’s a work in progess, not unlike the software it aims to serve.
The wiki on the whole is, as of now, certainly more useful than the official site and the level of growth considering the small pool of contributors and the fact it hasn’t even had the benefit of a link from the main site, is astounding. Look at the status page on the website. It’s horribly out-of-date, because there are bottlenecks. There are what, one or two people who have the ability to update that information? This obviously works in a broader context too - you only need to look at the wiki versus the official site over the last few months to see the disparities in growth.
So here’s the idea: give the wiki a prominent link from the new site, keep it running, and when the content gets up to scratch, put a copy on the new site. If it’s improved again six months down the track, put a revised copy up. Think of the wiki as CVS/SVN, and think of the official site as release. Otherwise you’re going to turn a lot of contributors off, and leave even more users clueless as to how to use their new operating system.
As for the issue of too many lines of communication, well, the wiki isn’t a line of communication. There are talk pages for discussion relating directly to the wiki and the maintenance of it, but that’s it. It isn’t a forum or a mailing list, and no-one’s using it as such.