On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 6:52:09 PM UTC+4:30, Watt wrote: > > Nice one TT! Collaboration, limited collectivism and sharing the load get > my vote. > > In my opinion GG is actually TW's strongest resource at the moment. > > *GG is a brain dump - a silo - anything and everything goes in it. > > *GG is the reliable silo. The entire conversation takes place here. > Splinter discussion groups will splinter the conversation. IMO Avoid > multiple silos. Open, unified discussion in a single established location > is powerful, inclusive and democratic. > > *GG is the first, officially recognised point of call if you're a TW > beginner. You can find answers here and ask questions. The community is > courteous, diverse, helpful and very knowledgeable. > > *That idea of community has enormous value - the level of unforced user > engagement on GG is extraordinary. > > *GG has limitations but in its favour it's still here, 24 hours a day, > it's neutral - not subject to an individual's whims and styles, it is > egoless, 'owned' by the group, not one individual. It has everything in it, > there is a chronology. It's searchable - granted hitting the right search > term is difficult but difficulty can be 'educational'. > > *GG has a personality - acquired from it's collective membership - it also > quickly reveals who the TW 'adepts' are. You learn to trust inputs from > particular names - (Don't stop sharing you lovely people). > > So, I like GG despite its faults. >
> I think your emerging model of Official TW documentation, supplemented by > GG as the big brain dump where everything goes, supplemented by super > useful TW resource lists like Dave's Toolmap, supplemented by user > generated 'area specific' solution wikis such as Mohammad's pioneering > TW-Scripts and Regex Solutions is a pretty good model. > > Maybe it's the area specific solutions that could be collaborated on and > extended? Mohammad has got the ball rolling already I think and did float > an input tool for contributions of solutions found on GG. Perhaps he'd be > willing to brush up the mechanism and users could discuss and agree on a > formalised, recognised, findable accepted method of chipping in solutions > around particular problematic topic areas? > Thank you TT and Watt for supporting TW-Scripts. As you know it mainly focuses on problems needs some scripting e.g. at least writing a filter! I really welcome any kind of cooperation and even I am ready to transfer it to community or tiddlywiki.com itself. TW-Scripts approach is learning through examples and acts like a solution manual. Actually it is one of the best resources created by INDIRECT collaboration! INDIRECT means few people showed interest to prepare material for TW-Scripts, but many gave their solutions to questions in GG and I tried to collect and compile into TW-Scripts format! Of course I selected some of these solutions first because I should be interested in that solution, second and more important I should understand the solution to document it. In a failed try, I created a GitHub organization called tw-scripts ( https://github.com/orgs/tw-scripts/dashboard) with some projects focused on documentation. We did this in collaboration with Talha. It is simple for everybody has a GitHub account to collaborate! But as we did not receive any request, I remained with the original version of TW-Scripts maintained on https://github.com/kookma/TW-Scripts *By the way writing documentation for Tiddlywiki is a sad story!* If you dig into GG you will see many people tried to prepare or collaborate on TW documentation, but all these efforts failed and at maximum resulted in stranded individual wikis. The same story is for plugins! we have not a plugin library at unofficial one to simple locate plugins and install them like the official get more plugin! There is no rating mechanism nothing... Mohammad > Some features I'd prefer; > No single individual shoulders the burden > Self maintainiing > Easy input > Topic defined > Formally recognised and promoted > Uses TW wherever possible > > Other things this thread might have ideas on; > Structure of contribution > Input method > Collection point > Agreed topic areas > Method of publicising > > Collating those solution inputs would be the work that might need sharing > and how to go about that could discussed further. > > The FAQ idea is another possible route, I think administering one, > maintaining answers and establishing whose responsibility it would be need > careful discussion. Avoiding multiple information silos and diluting the > collective but anarchic authority of GG might be considerations. > > Anyway just my 2 cents, here's a simple 3 hit helpline hierarchy for any > beginners out there; > > Tiddlywiki Official Docs - https://tiddlywiki.com/ > > --Google Groups -http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki > > ---- Dave Gifford's Toolmap - > https://dynalist.io/d/zUP-nIWu2FFoXH-oM7L7d9DM see relevant sections > > Dave's already created a beautiful resource - so why reinvent that wheel? > Adding area specific solutions to his toolmap, solution sites with > examples, created along the lines explored by Mohammad seems like it could > be coordinatable and doable. 'Lets Snowball that cumulative group > knowledge'. > > Keep up the good work guys. Big thanks to all you TW-ites for your efforts > and the continuing conversation. It is much appreciated! > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/c869d399-8d91-452a-8f2f-cf58f1207e43%40googlegroups.com.
