[Typo3-documentation] The purpose of the wiki

[Ingmar Schlecht]

Hi Peter,

Peter Kindström wrote:
>>>> The wiki is blowed up with pages that are basically empty, just 
>>>> containing a header or a link to a manual on Typo3.org.
>>>
>>>
>>> The has a structural purpose and doesn't hurt at all.
>>
>>
>> So you'd like to structure everything first, and write the articles 
>> later?
> 
> 
> Yes, that is IMHO the best way to get quality instead of quantity....
> 
> And IMHO Typo3 already have enought quantity - both when it comes to 
> extensions and documentation! But what I think Typo3 need is more 
> structure and quality. (Of course there are exceptions! I speak in 
> general - and personal - terms now!)

OK, I got your point.

>> Personally, I don't like that approach, because it seem only 
>> demotivating to me if there are so many empty articles that someone 
>> "planned" but never wrote.
> 
> 
> But you want it to be easy to make new pages just by clicking a link in 
> TER?

Yes. That's IMHO no contradiction.
The purpose of that link from TER to the wiki is to "create opportunity" 
for the typo3.org users that don't know about the wiki yet to create a 
manual for an extension that was formerly undocumented. If he does 
create a manual, he creates CONTENT that is valuable for anyone willing 
to use the Extension. That's something very different than having lots 
of links to "planned pages" on wiki.typo3.org that don't provide any 
content.

> Isn´t it so that if we _plan_ what pages there should be then we know 
> that someone cares about them? 

Are you sure?
Will those people who have planned them really WRITE them?
Because only *written* manuals are worth anything,
planned ones are not only useless but keep the user from finding the 
real ones.

That's why I, again, propose a page "planned docs".

>  And in that way we don´t get a lot of
> empty pages?

Are you saying: If we plan pages, we won't get lots of empty pages?
I don't quite understand that. Please explain.

> BTW _is_ this a problem with the wiki today? If so, we really should 
> concentrate on filling those pages and maybe even restrict possibility 
> to create new pages?

(see my comment at the very end of this mail)

> And not letting the wiki grow in a natural way...

OK, I clearly see the two purposes of the wiki now:

  1.) Serving as a groupware tool that enables working together on
      creating a limited number of high quality documentation
      (that's what you'd like the wiki to be)

  2.) Seving as a way to anarchically let the documentation grow and let
      it be organised later (this is the environment I feel more free
      to write documentation in)

Question is, is it possible to combine these purposes or do we need to 
make a decision in favour of one of those options?

> It also looks like some of the empty pages is a way for the writer (read 
> Jean-Marie) to structure his on work in progress. I really think we 
> should let him do it his own way, when it comes to this kind of details. 

Yes, let him plan his writings, but not on the front page.

That's still the reason why I propose this "planned docs" page.

I think there should be the following rule...
   "Before a page is linked to from the front page, it must contain
    valuable content."

> But of course we will keep an eye on him, so that he fills the pages 
> with information some day! :-)  :-)

OK, that means anyone who planned a page, MUST write it one day?
So why not let him do the planning work on his own PC if it's mainly for 
himself anyway?
Or publish his planning work on a planning page so others can comment on it.

>> I would prefer a "natural way of growth", meaning that the wiki should 
>> currently be nearly EMPTY, and if someone writes an articles, the wiki 
>> will grow. We can think about structuring then. In the current state, 
>> the Wiki is IMHO overstructured.
> 
> 
> I disagree! We just prevent people from putting their links on the main 
> page and force them to decide what type of document they will write 
> (tutorial, reference etc) and for what target group (user/admin/dev).

Do you think a wiki is there to ENFORCE anything?
To me, the wiki is about woking in FREEDOM.

cheers,
Ingmar