On 23/08/17 at 08:54pm, David C. Rankin wrote:
Archdevs,When I see an wiki page that is unclear or could benefit from a small addition, for the past 7+ years I've tried to do my part, and I was happy to do so. But, consistently, for the past year or so, any user contributions to the wiki are systematically struct from the pages. The latest being a small addition to the multilib page to make clear that following repo addition and update you need to explicitly install the wanted multilib packages. Following the directions on the page as it exists gets you nowhere, but implies that it is all that needs to be done. Again, as has been the form over the past year or, the additions are erased and a vague reference mentioning the additional steps are covered in an ancillary page is given as the reason.
Actually, the reason for rolling back the edits was much more clear: the information is contained in a tip. Your examples were not adding anything to the page other than character count.
As a P.E. and Attorney, I know documentation. I know when it's clear, and when it's not clear. If the point of the wiki is to provide clear information to users, then why are all improvements systematically struck? Yes, brevity is a good thing, but not at the expense of clarity...
Lawyers are hardly known for either their brevity or their clarity.
Does Arch still want user contribution to the wiki? If so, systematically deleting the contributions that users take the time to make, isn't going to promote further contribution. Why bother, more than likely it will just be erased....
Contributions *are* welcome. That doesn't mean that they will automatically be accepted. Acknowledging that a wiki is a collaborative effort, and all that entails (often at the expense of individual egos), is also a helpful quality to bring to the project. /J -- http://jasonwryan.com/ GPG: 7817 E3FF 578E EEE1 9F64 D40C 445E 52EA B1BD 4E40
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
