On 7/31/07, Douglas Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Concur with Frank. The power of a wiki is the ability to allow large > collaborative, synchronous participation on the dataset, similar to the > use of CVS (concurrent versions systems) for software. Perhaps we might > "copy" the software model here making the wiki and then creating > "freeze" points where large changes are held and only minor fixes are > allowed up to the "release point" where we publish a version. The wiki > is then "unfrozen" to allow all changes until the next "freeze" point. > The wiki will always contain the most "up-to-date" / bleeding edge > information, but the information has not yet been vetted / approved for > publishing. This should make maintaining the overall body of knowledge > easier over time and allow for even easier (and hopefully therefore > greater) participation by the community. > > Thoughts? > Doug > > Frank Peters wrote: > > Michele Zarri wrote: > > > >> On 7/31/07, Jean Hollis Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> [Snip!] > >> > >> > >> One possibility is to continue to *produce* our new material in > >> > >>> ODT as we have been doing, but *maintain* it on the wiki after > >>> initial publication. Of course, that still leaves the problem of > >>> generating updated ODTs from the wiki. > >>> > >> The ODT should still be the master. I would also add that the update of > the > >> wiki should only take place when a major revision takes place and there > >> should be a pointer to the OOoAuthors web site for those who may prefer > to > >> read the user guide offline or print some selected parts. > >> The only advantage of the Wiki is probably the possibility to search > for > >> keywords however, if we continue to provide pdfs, they are normally > indexed > >> by search engines so the same can be done on OOoAuthors (it just > requires a > >> bit more effort). > >> > > > > Let me jump in here. The most compelling advantage of a wiki as opposed > > to "offline" formats or a classical website is easy collaboration > > and contribution. So ultimately, using the wiki "just" to publish > > documentation would IMO be the wrong approach. > > > > I agree that the wiki currently is not set up for allowing to edit > > and publish documentation in book format. So I understand the > > reservations. > > > > However, I would like to work on the wiki and functionality around > > it to enable just that - work on files on the wiki and release them > > as a book through export to ODF/PDF/HTML. Maybe I'll fail miserably ;-) > > > > In any case, I would like to invite you to observe what's going on > > and see if we can come up with something that would fulfill the > > requirements. > > > > Thanks > > Frank > > > > > > > Hello,
I somehow doubt that people will be more encouraged to participate to the drafting of the user guide if it was made available as wiki, and on the other hand there is the danger of losing the consistency and uniformity of style that the user guide enjoys (to a large degree) today. This is why I think that, even if Frank devises the perfect tool to transform a wiki in a book, the resulting user guide is quite likely to be quite unstructured, unbalanced in terms of topics covered and incomplete. Ultimately my feeling is that the resulting user guide will be of lower quality than the odt-based user guide we have today. I have however read with interest what Frank and Douglas wrote and indeed I fully agree that a wiki would be a perfect tool to cover the latest developments of the software. Indeed, keeping up with the new features as they are introduced in OOo is one of the major issues Jean is trying to address. If the wiki could be used by wannabe authors to provide a description of new features, then this information could then be integrated in the user guide. In summary I still think that the wiki should supplement the odt-based user guide rather than replace it. Cheers, Michele
