wiki baffle

[zehd]

To be fair I'm thinking about doing way too much, I haven't actually DONE anything



Yes, this is in my head, But really is even 99.12 necessary any more? Sub seems almost to have given up on that?



Exactly what I'm trying to do have contacted Blader_se about this. And have tried to edit on this basis.



Do I want to be in my shoes? Cannot I just wear yours :o

Cheers

Steeb

The only reason I think 99.12 should be there, is it's the last version of the old style. Yes, there are lots of people that are happy with the old, and we COULD block them out and force them to move up, and they HAVE had a long transitional period...but still, it might...

I would ask for a second and third on that idea...

As far as getting Blader_SE to shorten the pages, well that's actually your job.... Good Luck!!!

[K.S.]

Let's start with second link on the left:

http://gbpvr.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReadMeFirst

This is very boring and says alot of stuff that was said on the homepage already (even though I took some words out last week).

Any ideas?

dunno... i've added an comment about intended audiance. else: yeah, its boring (that's the reason why nobody ever RTFM ) but needed/good info for everybody wanting to contribute to the wiki...

btw: i'm not sure that's the right way to tackle it... you're aiming for the perfect wiki/manual (that's rather noble, but bound to fail )... for that aim, you'll need fulltime paid staff (just like the corp i'm working for & they still fail to get it documented up to date )

better get ourself an pragmatic point of view & focus on the pages with wrong/outdated infos & also on the up to now missing pages/content (i.e. non GBPVR specific problems with wakeup which keep emerging regularly / new features like multirecord / best practices for postprocessing / ...)

[zehd]

dunno... i've added an comment about intended audiance. else: yeah, its boring (that's the reason why nobody ever RTFM ) but needed/good info for everybody wanting to contribute to the wiki...

btw: i'm not sure that's the right way to tackle it... you're aiming for the perfect wiki/manual (that's rather noble, but bound to fail )... for that aim, you'll need fulltime paid staff (just like the corp i'm working for & they still fail to get it documented up to date )

better get ourself an pragmatic point of view & focus on the pages with wrong/outdated infos & also on the up to now missing pages/content (i.e. non GBPVR specific problems with wakeup which keep emerging regularly / new features like multirecord / best practices for postprocessing / ...)

Yeah we should be pragmatic that it will never be up to date, but I hate repeating myself. (I hate how NICE this forum is, as I'd love to save RTFM a lot !!! ) Many times, when I realize that there is a common trend, and the same point is being repeated over and over, I'll edit or add a page, and then point users to it...


But really, I'm a nice guy, ... really...

[K.S.]

Many times, when I realize that there is a common trend, and the same point is being repeated over and over, I'll edit or add a page, and then point users to it...

that's exactly my tought too, that's also the reason i've added to the FAQ regarding wake-up-with-remotes / black-screen-after-wakeup & would like to add more in similar directions. there is no need for everybody to reinvent the wheel

the reason i asked steeb for a list: i plain simple hate proofreading. if i use the wiki to get some info & stumble upon something (missing/outdated info), no problem, i'll add content. if i have to proofread the whole wiki to search for errors/missing infos, i'm out of that game :o

[steeb]

Good comments all,

well I say all but you know who you are that have commented :p

I'm not trying to write a manual just an overhaul would be good.

And these comments are noted, otherwise I guess I'm ready to play........

Cheers

Steeb

[MixMan]

I'm not a programmer, but I have re-organized the Development/Plugin section. I think that no one had updated that section in 3 years.
I compiled the infromation from treads in the Forum and uploaded sample codes that I had on my disk.
I made an OutDated section where I move old pages....to see if anyone should claim that they where OK.

Perhaps it is time to do the same thing with the Plugin section.....make an Old Plugins section and move Old Plugins to that page.

What does blader_se think would be the best to do?

[blader_se]

First to any new wiki editors, Please, don't rename wiki pages!
Renaming page's (which on the file server means copy file to a new file) will lead to unnecessary use of disc space and link rot.
Instead, the same effect should be accomplished by editing the sidebar and editing the page title (done with the 'title:' markup).

Perhaps it is time to do the same thing with the Plugin section.....make an Old Plugins section and move Old Plugins to that page.

What does blader_se think would be the best to do?

I see (especially) the plugin section as a "bottom up design", i.e. if the individual plugin page is kept up to date, including adding GBPVR_version categories, the rest is fine. We only have to add the automatically generated list on the plugin index page. Having said that, there is one big flaw, pm-wiki can not yet automatically create a sidebar based on the version categories, so we'll need to manually remove "old" links from the sidebar.

I also takes zehds point of view, when a question is raised in the forum a couple of times - that piece of information is missing/hidden in the wiki and ought to be fixed.

Basically I think the wiki is usably today, and when someone feel they would like to update some information they should do that - in doing so they could discover that the added information forces them to restructure the page and it could also affect other pages - then update those as well.

I feel that just restructuring without adding information is overambitious...

[zehd]

I also takes zehds point of view, when a question is raised in the forum a couple of times - that piece of information is missing/hidden in the wiki and ought to be fixed.

It is A LOT of work, indeed. Commerical software would have someone or a dept that would be working on documentation. All we have is each other (Isn't that sweet!)

Certainly it's debatable, and certain heavy hitters have opposed this, but I really think users need a manual, and the wiki is the manual. I don't ever want to get to the point that we RTFM people. But People should be directed to the wiki as an authoritative source, and be discouraged from not trying the wiki and just getting newbie questions answered on the forum...

It would be wrong to underplay it's importance as being 'just a collection of user's tips and suggestions' In fact IMHO, I would say that it should be avoided to have 'opinion' or 'indivuals experiences' on the wiki. It needs authority. And you can't get that from "I'm Joe, and this works for me..."

In other words, pages should be written as Manual pages (Do this, this and this) rather than, Suggestion pages (you might try these two hundred different drivers, one of them might work...)

Of course learning from others experiences is very important too, so maybe links to threads is a better idea...

Just rambling here (with a bit of loud opinion)

For it to be authoritative, we need (NEED) people to work on it.

Thanks all for working on it

(PS, I know that I have been guilty of some of my own criticisms. But that's why I go to therapy) :eek:

[MixMan]

I think you are right Frank. Nothing happens if nobody does anything.
Your doing a great job with the wiki. Take command.

[zehd]

I think you are right Frank. Nothing happens if nobody does anything.
Your doing a great job with the wiki. Take command.

Oh oh... Hey, Most of what I did is two years old. I just sort of keep an eye on some pages...

Take command? That means me asking more stupid questions and then rewriting the answers into something that makes me look smart. And then I'll get another 1500 posts and shoot past Martin....

Well anyways, I think that the wiki needs to be reorganized a bit. Actuall Folders, HD Storage. It's a huge task, but It might be better to setup a offline wiki, and start copying pages over. Whenever a page is copyied into the new wiki, it gets locked on the old.

Only problem is time. better to have a few people do it, but that means a whack of time needed...