Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

kludge · 2008-12-21 19:32:37

i swear by dog that i found articles in the wiki for moc and cmus. i forgot to bookmark then before i rebooted, and now (a few days later), those articles don't seem to exist. it's possible i imagined them, but i'd like to verify that.

did they exist? if so, where'd they go?

more generally, how can i (or anyone) check our memory against the wiki history?

thanks!

Last edited by kludge (2008-12-28 06:26:54)

dav7 · 2008-12-26 15:50:19

They might be in your browser's history, perhaps.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?tit … on=history will show a page's edit history, ie if it ever existed. I don't know if deleting a page deletes its edit history though.

Google generally caches URLs in its gigantic index for a while though, so googling might turn up pages that have disappeared.

-dav7

kludge · 2008-12-26 20:55:34

They might be in your browser's history, perhaps.

err... i don't keep one.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?tit … on=history will show a page's edit history, ie if it ever existed. I don't know if deleting a page deletes its edit history though.

nope. no love.

Google generally caches URLs in its gigantic index for a while though, so googling might turn up pages that have disappeared.

third strike. don't know what i was smoking.

so i guess i imagined their existence. still... i imagine the wiki must keep a history of all creations and deletions. at least, i'd think it would.

string · 2008-12-26 21:11:56

Maybe you were looking at another wiki (perhaps wikipedia or sich)

kludge · 2008-12-26 21:26:05

's entirely possible. i browse the web the way i did research at university: grab everything from a search and every link that looks remotely useful, open them all in tabs, then skim them for relevance. so even when i've winnowed the chaff, i commonly have five or six or twelve tabs on the same thing open at once. it's entirely possible i imagined them. (oh, tabbed browsers... how did i ever live with you?!) maybe i should just write them myself

dolby · 2008-12-27 15:00:42

We dont need a wiki page for every application in the universe. Tell the developers of the application to ship a decent manpage. Better yet write it and submit it yourself.

kludge · 2008-12-27 21:10:42

dolby wrote:

We dont need a wiki page for every application in the universe. Tell the developers of the application to ship a decent manpage. Better yet write it and submit it yourself.

and fair enough. it's just that i tend to go the wiki before trying to install anything non-trivial to look for gotchas and hints. i guess this means there aren't any!

dolby · 2008-12-27 21:19:56

Agreed, if you consider moc or cmus non-trivial, thats a problem.

crouse · 2008-12-28 01:34:45

dolby......... I think you just created the chicken and the egg problem.

To read a man page, you have to install it, and before he installed it he wanted to read about it ( a very smart thing to do btw) ......... so having a wiki page for it isn't really a horrible idea.
To be honest, I go to the wiki before installing lots of things myself, and what is non-trivial to some isn't to others, it's a subjective thing isn't it ? Granted Arch makes it REALLY easy to install, but many times there are helpful hints on using the application in the wiki's, vs man pages. Didn't the Gentoo wiki have a page for "every application in the universe"

dolby · 2008-12-28 02:43:19

Then you have the same problem. Its not a subjective thing. And most man pages are available on the internet too. Not to mention most applications have webpages, irc channels. mailing lists.

This kind of behaviour resembles the one of people who, because they use a certain distribution they think they should ask about every problem they have with applications in the distribution specific channels, open all bug reports to the Archlinux bugtracker etc. Users should learn to interact with application developers.
A linux distribution is just the strings that holds the pieces together. Nothing more.

Ideally, all documentation for a certain application comes from upstream. Especially when it comes to applications like cmus, what the hell is a wiki page needed? To tell you to pacman -S cmus?
If you are talking about config files, theres the internet, as well as application mailing lists/forums or distribution forums to ask about.

Last edited by dolby (2008-12-28 02:44:42)

kludge · 2008-12-28 06:25:06

uh, hey, dolby, chill.

point the first: i look at the wiki before installing because i am an archlinux user and like to check the experience of other users who (presumably) share similar preferences and methods. not finding a page doesn't stop me from installing a package.

point the second: the meat of my question wasn't *really* about cmus or moc. it was about verifying the past or present (non)existence of wiki pages. i thought i'd seen them, and then couldn't find them. that got me curious.

point the third: a distribution is more than just strings. those strings are woven together by people. those people weave certain patterns and use certain knots in their weavings. eventually they form a community that is at least somewhat like-minded. (check out the arch linux last.fm group and you'll see a strong correllation between arch and metal, as a for instance.) it shouldn't be surprising that those folks look to their community's resources before going elsewhere. why go cross town when you can go down the street, eh?

point the fourth: when i said maybe i oughta just write them myself, i was gently poking fun at myself for asking others for answers i could come up with. if there's no point in writing a wiki entry, rest assured that i'm to lazy to do it.

so let me reformulate my question:

does the wiki contain a deletion history or some other mechanism for verifying the past or present (non)existence of a particular page? if so, where could i find it?

Last edited by kludge (2008-12-28 22:58:33)

Xauthority · 2008-12-28 08:03:47

crouse wrote:

dolby......... I think you just created the chicken and the egg problem.
To read a man page, you have to install it, and before he installed it he wanted to read about it ( a very smart thing to do btw) ......... so having a wiki page for it isn't really a horrible idea.
To be honest, I go to the wiki before installing lots of things myself, and what is non-trivial to some isn't to others, it's a subjective thing isn't it ? Granted Arch makes it REALLY easy to install, but many times there are helpful hints on using the application in the wiki's, vs man pages. Didn't the Gentoo wiki have a page for "every application in the universe"

I think to have just a bit more description in Pacman would fix the problem

pacman -Si NAMEOFPACKAGE | grep Description

and there is still pacman -Rn. And packages from core and extra wont be harmful, I think... and installing from 3rd parties is
not recommended

Last edited by Xauthority (2008-12-28 08:05:03)

crouse · 2008-12-29 14:20:24

dolby wrote:

Then you have the same problem. Its not a subjective thing. And most man pages are available on the internet too. Not to mention most applications have webpages, irc channels. mailing lists.
This kind of behaviour resembles the one of people who, because they use a certain distribution they think they should ask about every problem they have with applications in the distribution specific channels, open all bug reports to the Archlinux bugtracker etc. Users should learn to interact with application developers.
A linux distribution is just the strings that holds the pieces together. Nothing more.
Ideally, all documentation for a certain application comes from upstream. Especially when it comes to applications like cmus, what the hell is a wiki page needed? To tell you to pacman -S cmus?
If you are talking about config files, theres the internet, as well as application mailing lists/forums or distribution forums to ask about.

Yes it IS subjective, something you understand and know, someone else might NOT. How that cannot be subjective is beyond me. Why are you talking about behavior ? Your kind of behavior is what drives people away from forums/irc/mailing lists. So a newbie asks the same questions someone else asked 5 months ago......... is the forum gonna run out of space or something ? You don't have to answer, let someone else answer then. Personally I think asking in a "distribution" specific forum is a fine idea, then if it needs carried upstream, go bug the developers. Following your advice the developers that get asked the million "newbie" questions will get mad and probably tell them to go ask in the "distribution" specific forums. Either way, this guy can't win, because he asked a simple question. Actually this question wasn't simple "Wiki Pages Gone AWOL?", he even asked in the correct forum, but he gets your tirade about his "behavior". I AGREE "Ideally, all documentation for a certain application comes from upstream.", and that people should read the fine manual, but his question really wasn't about the application anyway, but even if it was, your answer was rude.

There are MANY applications that have a wiki page...... according to you then, we don't need any of them ? Why then do we have a wiki ? Why do we have specific forums for asking questions about applications ?

YOU too asked silly questions when you were new, even about the wiki no less : http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=24303 --- No one flamed you, please return the favor.

kludge · 2008-12-29 19:24:03

this thread gets increasingly off-topic, and noone's really answered my question. that's annoying.

that said, crouse has a really good point here. arch is--without question--an "advanced" distribution. a successful arch n00b should be at least an intermediate or advanced ubuntu user. or if coming from windows, should have experience mucking about in the registry and playing with system internals. even so, we all need help sometimes, and we shouldn't have to win some pissing contest with our *nix credentials to earn that help. if you haven't done your homework first, and continue to pester after being politely asked to do your own research, well, yeah, then it's time to go all bruenig on your ass. but what do we gain by assuming that someone who asks a question we think is stupid hasn't done their homework?

on the one hand, i think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest to someone who wants or needs hand-holding that, "arch really may not be the distro for you. if you insist on running it anyhow, be ready for a steep learning curve, and be ready to climb that curve yourself. google and the search functions of the forum/wiki are your new best friends." in fact, i did that just the other day on irc, and without any rancor, the newbie agreed they'd be better off on another distro until they're more comfortable with *nix "under the hood." (XaeroOne, if you read this, i wish you the best of luck with gOS!)

on the other hand, it's just shitty elitism to yell at people when they don't measure up to your expectations. running arch linux, or gentoo, or linux from scratch, or plan 9, does not make you a better person. it doesn't even make you a "better" computer user, just a more technically-inclined, hands-on one. and it sure as phrak doesn't give you the right to start bullying or belittling people. that only (a) makes you look like an asshole and (b) fosters the (not-unfounded-in-reality) notion that harcore *nix geeks form aggressive, macho, boys' clubs and should be avoided at all costs.

i had a really inspiring chat with a friend-of-a-friend who had just installed ubuntu the other day. he hadn't figured out how to install software yet, because he didn't grok the whole distribution system and still thought he had to go download an installer from a website. when i pointed him towards synaptics, he was *so* excited. when i pointed him towards linuxfromscratch as a great learning experience if you want to get "under the hood," he responded, "woah! i'm not ready for that yet. i'll get there." and maybe he will. in the meantime, he's really phraking excited about linux and really happy to have finally thrown off the m$ chains. maybe he'll get more comfortable and knowledgeable with linux and realize he's still computing within the artificial restraints of a bunch of paid developers and coming looking for a free-er distro. and then i'll help him with arch linux. in the meantime, we should all be glad we've got one more user out of the commercial software rat race.

please note, this is not aimed at anyone in particular. it's more a response to spending way too much time on #archlinux. dolby, while i think you went a little off the rails on this one, i quite appreciate your contributions here.

now, can someone please take a stab at the actual question here?!? please?

SamC · 2008-12-29 19:39:34

Kludge: Does the "All Pages" page have a history?

kludge · 2008-12-29 20:50:39

SamC: err, call me a noob, but where is this "All Pages" of which you speak? it didn't show up in a title search.

crouse · 2008-12-29 21:06:16

I think he means:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Special:Allpages

Searching I didn't find any pages on either application in the wiki. I'm guessing that it was probably on a different wiki that you found them.

Here is a link to "special pages" for the Arch Wiki that do come in useful sometimes.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Spe … ecialpages

kludge · 2008-12-29 23:34:38

@crouse: hot dog, we have a wiener! that's not *exactly* what i was looking for, but i think it's as close as i'll get. thank you!

Last edited by kludge (2008-12-29 23:43:02)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-12-21 19:32:37

Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#2 2008-12-26 15:50:19

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#3 2008-12-26 20:55:34

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#4 2008-12-26 21:11:56

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#5 2008-12-26 21:26:05

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#6 2008-12-27 15:00:42

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#7 2008-12-27 21:10:42

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#8 2008-12-27 21:19:56

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#9 2008-12-28 01:34:45

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#10 2008-12-28 02:43:19

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#11 2008-12-28 06:25:06

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#12 2008-12-28 08:03:47

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#13 2008-12-29 14:20:24

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#14 2008-12-29 19:24:03

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#15 2008-12-29 19:39:34

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#16 2008-12-29 20:50:39

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#17 2008-12-29 21:06:16

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

#18 2008-12-29 23:34:38

Re: Wiki Pages Gone AWOL? (was: never really about moc or cmus)

Board footer