Ciao TonyM *I like Mohammad's approach because I think its proof of a method that works.*
Mohammad's main information wikis "harvest" some of what TW does in a form that is both (1) instructional; (2) illustrated by use cases. I think its a good combination --- Worth stressing is: I pursue things I ENJOY the most. So, for instance, I enjoy regular expressions. (Somewhat like some people like the Times Crossword Puzzle). So I find it fun--so its more easily sustainable to contribute docs & solutions to that theme. --- TBH, I'm not overly bothered what fora we use for documenting TW. Though TW itself seems pretty good. And to use the tool to document the tool seems to me sensible unless there good reasons not to. It directly supports iterative learning that way. --- I think the issue is more about "major listings" so good things don't go awol. David's Toolmap is really good even though its not TW itself. But it mainly links directly to TWs. So you back in TW immediately. Which is good. --- Dave's list is resources in general. *I think we need a complimentary "short-list" only of dedicated "help" wiki/sites.* *---* Regarding helping beginners, which I think is important, I'm really NOT sure. *I seen so many efforts to do that that have failed.* I am not fully clear why. My idea, maybe wrong, is to make beginner support the one premiere collective initiative that a big project like you suggest might work for. *My one thought was for a FAQ format for beginners. * The simplest reason is individual questions are more easily contributed to by others, where they can focus on what they understand to be able to contribute. Seamless text isn't so easy. --- After a lot of debate on docs (which I have contributed to a lot---& changed my mind about a lot) I think we could leverage what we have on GG. And harvest it. And use it to collaborate. Which we do already. Leverage of what we do already seems workable. I'm not sure is needs a "leader" so much as a "model of what works." Just thoughts Josiah On Friday, 20 September 2019 02:49:41 UTC+2, TonyM wrote: > > I only have a *little time* available in coming weeks, but are keen to > proceed. > > *My carefully considered response to this thread.* > > I think there is furious agreement what must be done, and there will > always be differences on how. Because the how is difficult to answer, > enthusiastic contributors build their own "repositories" and unfortunately > get left to administer them on their own. Separate repositories means > people have to look for them or visit each to acquire the information they > need and they are at the behest of the repository designer for the value of > search and indexing provided in that repository. These repositories are > very valuable but they remain a little isolated. > > Owners of such private repositories need to be squirrels collecting > relevant info that fits the scope of the repositories often unstated > purpose. Some community members will suggest suitable information however > it is usually the owners responsibility to collect the "nuts". When an > owner has less time the nuts grow old and some go off and the repository > looses some value. The prospect of bringing it up to date feels like a > chore, and if you have no idea of its value to others and the number of > visitors it could be hard to build motivation to revisit it. > > We could all dream of an ultimate repository of all things tiddlywiki but > is it even achievable?, if it is it will only be in time and participation. > The best way to start is build a hybrid environment of centralised records > that document the decentralised records. This environment need the > following qualities as its key features; > > - Easy for anyone to contribute to > - A structure that forces curation, organization on contributions so > as to extract maximum value from the least effort and avoid admin overheads > - Easy to reference external resources > - The ability to discuss and contribute to the material on the site > - An opportunity to leverage tiddlywiki as much as possible > - Ability to build a team of enthusiasts to maintain and grow the > community resources. > > > Like any smart project the best effort should be expended up front to > structure the solution effectively, rather than on an ad hoc basis. The > danger of ad hoc which we are all familiar is fragments, overlapping > material, gaps and duplications, and perhaps worst of all confusion and > fragmentation. > > In fact tiddlywiki itself could inspire this fragmentation because it has > many object, and components within it. > > The only solution in my view is using an analysis process to determine the > pieces we want to collect together as a community and synthesis to build a > unified view of the pieces. The solution needs to keep this modularisation > from the analysis process alive so contributions can be made by the > community at any level. A small configuration detail, a code fragment > through to plugins and whole wiki editions. The solution will bring > together all the pieces in a consistent browsable and searchable whole, > however as it evolves it will be pointing to many external resources so the > ability to provide excerpts or keywords against external resources should > make those resources more findable. > > In time enthusiasts will most likely migrate these external resources into > the central community resource where others can help maintain it and add > value. The beauty of tiddlywiki will also allow people to download and > export content as needed. > > I will proceed given sufficient support and acknowledgement! > > What do I need Initially?, > > - sufficient support and acknowledgement! > - A degree of authority to proceed and run with my design strategy > - Of course I always remain open to criticism and alternative > perspectives, but I will not let it cripple the process > - This is evolution not revolution > > I would like people with one or more of the following! > > - Those with Knowledge and Information management skills > - Database design and management skills > - Strong User interface skills > - Lived experience with tiddlywiki > - Some enthusiastic reviewers and contributors > - Team or collaboration experts > > We also need a set of collaboration tools, we can pick from available > ones, no need for permanent solutions. > > Your thoughts? > Your support? > > If you want to know more about HOW I plan to do this, if what I have said > in my posts in this thread is not enough join the team. > > Regards > Tony > > Regards > Tony > > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 4:53:25 AM UTC+10, Mohammad wrote: >> >> Example of high quality documentation prepared by community (procedure >> and how to) >> >> https://devguide.python.org/docquality/ >> >> >> I think Tiddlywiki itself is best for nonlinear documentation while >> learning should be somehow linear a trail is needed >> So, the vanilla edition is not good for documentation, may be something >> like Sphinx or a TW edition with some linearity >> like the trail you see on TW-Scripts or similar ... >> >> --Mohammad >> > -- 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/51beaab3-5a6d-47dd-ae74-4d7626acaf5c%40googlegroups.com.
