Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
What are others feelings on this?  What issues do you see with having
a wiki?  Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us
having a wiki?

What will policy on articles that are horribly dangerous or outright

see my previous email - wikipedia looks like they're writing a robot to deal with "Articles that need attention"[1]. We could do the same, there's nothing stopping us from deleting "really bad" pages. (archives are always available for someone who wants to revive and improve them).

There's also the huge amount of "Cleanup tags"[2] which I really like (the principle, not the huge amount). We could tailor this however we wanted.

>  Is Gentoo prepared to block or warn about articles that recommend
> stupid things?

I think we definitely should. Someone needs to discover that the article does so first!

>  If a warning is used, what will be used to distinguish
> between a generic "wiki, not necessarily checked by sane people" and a
> "article known to be horrible"?

Cleanup tags! One for each. Nice notice written at the top of the article saying exactly what you've said.

The problem with wikis is that enough of them contain enough good
information that people assume that all of them are entirely correct.

sure, but isn't that similar to, say, a forum?

Even if warnings are used, the assumption is often "well I was warned
about another article too and that turned out OK so I can ignore the

sure, some users are idiots :) Better idiot proofing doesn't protect you - it only creates better idiots. (I don't have a reference for this one).

 And whilst it might be OK for some people to say "well, we
warned you, so tough luck", it makes life very difficult for developers
who end up having to deal with hordes of users with broken systems...

I agree "tough luck" might be a response by some, so the user will go to the next person to help. I don't think this would necessarily fall back to developers. Just like forums, mailing lists and the current wiki, there is good and bad advice. From my experience on the gentoo-user list, bad advice generally gets noticed and corrected reasonably quickly. Even big stuffups (oops I unmerged python) are helped.

There is a good culture on the user list which still calls an idiot an idiot. The common one being people using ~ARCH on a remote production box, then complaining it broke for a ~ related reason, adding that they have no physical access (it happens often enough). The usual response is "you shouldn't have done it, you were warned, here's how to fix it". I see no problem with this.

>  it makes life very difficult for developers
> who end up having to deal with hordes of users with broken systems...

The only place where I could see specific developer loading, is users who take their problems as a result of following bad advice to bugzilla. I wouldn't expect the hordes would go there first...

Anyway, the wiki exists with all it's "bad advice" already. Making it official would only improve it and hence "reduce developer loading", IMHO.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_resources

Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse.
                -- Oscar Wilde

Reply via email to