Discussion:
Contributions to the wiki - Are user contributions a thing of the past?
(too old to reply)
David C. Rankin
2017-08-24 01:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Archdevs,

When I see an wiki page that is unclear or could benefit from a small
addition, for the past 7+ years I've tried to do my part, and I was happy to
do so.

But, consistently, for the past year or so, any user contributions to the
wiki are systematically struct from the pages.

The latest being a small addition to the multilib page to make clear that
following repo addition and update you need to explicitly install the wanted
multilib packages. Following the directions on the page as it exists gets you
nowhere, but implies that it is all that needs to be done.

Again, as has been the form over the past year or, the additions are erased
and a vague reference mentioning the additional steps are covered in an
ancillary page is given as the reason.

As a P.E. and Attorney, I know documentation. I know when it's clear, and
when it's not clear. If the point of the wiki is to provide clear information
to users, then why are all improvements systematically struck?

Yes, brevity is a good thing, but not at the expense of clarity...

Does Arch still want user contribution to the wiki? If so, systematically
deleting the contributions that users take the time to make, isn't going to
promote further contribution. Why bother, more than likely it will just be
erased....
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Doug Newgard
2017-08-24 02:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:54:35 -0500
Post by David C. Rankin
The latest being a small addition to the multilib page to make clear that
following repo addition and update you need to explicitly install the wanted
multilib packages. Following the directions on the page as it exists gets you
nowhere, but implies that it is all that needs to be done.
First, if you enable the multilib repo because you need something and don't
know that you would have to install that something, I would say you're on the
wrong distro. This is common sense at in it's most basic.

Second, the only thing that was removed was the useless examples, not the
statement that you need to install something.
Jason Ryan via arch-general
2017-08-24 02:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David C. Rankin
Archdevs,
When I see an wiki page that is unclear or could benefit from a small
addition, for the past 7+ years I've tried to do my part, and I was happy to
do so.
But, consistently, for the past year or so, any user contributions to the
wiki are systematically struct from the pages.
The latest being a small addition to the multilib page to make clear that
following repo addition and update you need to explicitly install the wanted
multilib packages. Following the directions on the page as it exists gets you
nowhere, but implies that it is all that needs to be done.
Again, as has been the form over the past year or, the additions are erased
and a vague reference mentioning the additional steps are covered in an
ancillary page is given as the reason.
Actually, the reason for rolling back the edits was much more clear:
the information is contained in a tip. Your examples were not adding
anything to the page other than character count.
Post by David C. Rankin
As a P.E. and Attorney, I know documentation. I know when it's clear, and
when it's not clear. If the point of the wiki is to provide clear information
to users, then why are all improvements systematically struck?
Yes, brevity is a good thing, but not at the expense of clarity...
Lawyers are hardly known for either their brevity or their clarity.
Post by David C. Rankin
Does Arch still want user contribution to the wiki? If so, systematically
deleting the contributions that users take the time to make, isn't going to
promote further contribution. Why bother, more than likely it will just be
erased....
Contributions *are* welcome. That doesn't mean that they will
automatically be accepted. Acknowledging that a wiki is a collaborative
effort, and all that entails (often at the expense of individual egos),
is also a helpful quality to bring to the project.

/J
--
http://jasonwryan.com/
GPG: 7817 E3FF 578E EEE1 9F64 D40C 445E 52EA B1BD 4E40
Eli Schwartz
2017-08-24 02:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David C. Rankin
Does Arch still want user contribution to the wiki? If so, systematically
deleting the contributions that users take the time to make, isn't going to
promote further contribution. Why bother, more than likely it will just be
erased....
Your contribution was not deleted, it was modified and built upon, in
order to still say what you added but in fewer words.

As jasonwryan said. I am startled that you would contribute to a Wiki
and then when someone *rewords* your contribution you react by claiming
that their right to contribute to the wiki is erasing your right to
contribute to the Wiki.

...

Lahwaacz did much the same with my recent contribution to the Official
repositories page... but I acknowledge that he was right in doing so,
and the part of my edits that was useful rather than frustrated ranting
is still there. Likewise, the part of your contributions that is useful
rather than redundant is still there, if less wordy.

tl;dr Hey, a collaborative Wiki!!!
--
Eli Schwartz
Loading...