Non-Arch users can contribute (anyone can register an account, providing they have access to a Linux box); what people here are averse to is trying to turn the wiki into a general GNU/Linux wiki or, worse, including specific references to other distros. A example, someone who uses Fedora contributing to the systemd page would be fine. Mentioning that it works on Fedora would be swiftly edited out as irrelevant. Someone from Ubuntu writing an Mir page would not be well received.
If you want to add this perspective to the Contributing page, you are welcome to.
This makes sense. Thank you.
]]>If you want to add this perspective to the Contributing page, you are welcome to.
]]>For the reasons I outlined above, and Anoknusa articulated more cogently...
I think it boils down that I think non-arch users contributions are, and would be worthwhile. Anyways, I don't have evidence of this and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Note, people seemed to read into my suggestion things that were not there. I said it should be addressed whether to mention other distros, and people replied like "This is a bad idea, we should not mention other distros." ... so we are actually in agreement?
]]>I wouldn't say large scale; it may be happening, but given the relatively low level of participation on the wiki, the majority of the maintenance is definitely carried out by Archers...
Yes, of course. I mean a large scale as in, a fraction that makes enough difference to address, which may be 5% or 10% or something. Your link doesn't really address the long tail or users who do few edits. My point is, that it's happening, its a benefit to arch, why not address it to get more benefit.
]]>ANOKNUSA wrote:Were the wiki maintainers to allow non-Archers to edit the wiki,
It's already allowed and happening on a large scale. The vast majority of the arch wiki applies to other distros, so people using other distros end up on arch wiki through google, then use the information and make improvements to it.
I wouldn't say large scale; it may be happening, but given the relatively low level of participation on the wiki, the majority of the maintenance is definitely carried out by Archers...
]]>Were the wiki maintainers to allow non-Archers to edit the wiki,
It's already allowed and happening on a large scale. The vast majority of the arch wiki applies to other distros, so people using other distros end up on arch wiki through google, then use the information and make improvements to it.
]]>1. We (Archers) use the wiki to find solutions/information for the ArchLinux distribution. Adding other distros will just murk the content and usability for the primary users: Archers.
2. Maintaining one wiki accurate and current is a hell of a job. Why add 100s of small hells to the problem. It will rapidly become inaccurate and loose its current value.
3. Even if we were to host information for other distros. Who says users of other distros would be interested in using our wiki?
Perhaps an example could better illustrate my points.
If you like Windows would you be better off creating a Linux distribution that "looks and feels like Windows" or would you rather **use Windows**. I think the answer is obvious.
You like Windows you use Windows and everything that comes along with it, including the documentation. You like Arch you use Arch and the Arch wiki.
I truly see no value trying to fix something that's not broken.
Just my 2 cents. I hope no one is offended.
R.
]]>1) They consist mostly of the information needed to get the window manager up and running, with a few hints as to intermediate configuration.
2) They avoid pointless duplication of information. Many segments of the Arch wiki entry for Awesome are just links to the official Awesome wiki. Thorough documentation is one of the expressed goals of the i3 developers, so the opening part of that entry is basically enough information to get a web browser open. In the case of dwm, users are basically expected to either know what they're doing when they start using it or figure it out on their own, and the relatively sparse wiki entry reflects that.
3) Because of 1) and 2) the scope of each entry remains within the purview of its subject. Archers are expected to do research on their own before asking questions like "How do I connect to wifi in Awesome?" That's the way we like things around here. Cluttering out wiki with neatly packaged, spoon-sized, extraneous information that's readily available elsewhere seems senseless. There may be links to various packages in the AUR, or bits of information that's not easily found elsewhere (things buried in mailing list archives or obscure Git repositories), but the entries aren't comprehensive guides to everything involved with using the window managers.
Were the wiki maintainers to allow non-Archers to edit the wiki, it is inevitable that those non-Archers would make those edits and contributions according to their own preferences---preferences reflected in part by their choice to use distributions other than Arch. Moreover, sooner or later the wiki would necessarily either become so bloated as to be a pain to read, or so generic as to do nobody any real good. All the more reason for people to craft wikis pertinent to their own distributions that reflect the values, tastes and desires of their surrounding communities, and not one of your arguments in favor of allowing non-Archers to contribute to the Arch wiki can't apply equally to the wiki of any other distribution.
]]>It should remain an Arch only wiki. If the majority of the content does apply to (some) other distros, that's great, but we shouldn't encourage edits that either are not accurate with respect to Arch, or explicity reference other distros, eg., "this works on Gentoo".
My strongest point is that this should be addressed in the ArchWiki:Contributing section for those not using arch. I don't think you should try to keep out contributions from users of other distros, of course that is not for me to decide. For example, say one of these: "If you haven't tested or read it from a manual that is in arch, don't assume it works in arch and don't contribute to the wiki based on it." Or "If you are pretty confident something applies to arch, because it is specified in an upstream manual of a version that is the same or very close to the current arch package, it is ok to contribute something based off it to the arch wiki."
edit: wording
]]>My distros wiki does not have a good reputation for accuracy, or is kinda dead, so what I add won't get updated, and will be tarred with the reputation of the rest of the wiki, so why bother. etc.
You know how your distro's wiki got that way? Everyone else thought like you do now. You know why it stays that way? Everyone else still thinks like you do now.
Change their minds.
Why should the rest of the bad content bring down your good entries? Why wouldn't your good entries bring up the rest of that wiki? Just call me an optimist: I'm a half full (of crap) kinda guy
]]>