20,741
edits
User talk:Bigstones: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→wiki restructuring
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
::::(ps: I've read Raymond's essay a long time ago, much more recently [[How the FlightGear project works]], I'm just fine with that) | ::::(ps: I've read Raymond's essay a long time ago, much more recently [[How the FlightGear project works]], I'm just fine with that) | ||
::::--[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | ::::--[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::: right, the 3 main wiki admins/maintainers who are currently involved/active have responded here already. As long as you keep your proposals optional, alongside the existing structure, I do not mind you proceeding directly from here, and I am sure that Johan & Gijs are also supportive of your contributions. Just let me say that we do not necessarily need suggestions/proposals or guidelines as much as people willing to actually '''implement''' something that works and "release & often", while responding to any community feedback provided. We've seen quite a few people in the last 18 months who expressed an interest in helping with our docs (including the wiki), but I have yet to see anything significant materializing from it, beyond massive discussions, or even fairly critical elaborations about our existing "system" that "just sucks". That is not to say that such criticism would be totally wrong, but we need to come up with something that works for all the parties involved here, especially those volunteering to help with maintaining entities like the wiki or the forum (which is mainly people like Gijs & Johan ATM). Obviously, nothing is "perfect" here, and there's lots of room for improvement - but recently, the FlightGear project seems to attract quite a few people who have a fairly poor signal/noise ratio, in other words if all the time spent debating with others would be spent contributing directly, we'd be in a pretty good shape actually. And even some of the more seasoned contributors seem to be falling victim to this recently, I know it happened to me... Overall, I am in favor of keeping the portal-based system - it's served us well, and hasn't even been adopted completely yet. Regarding more specific feedback, see below: | |||
:::::; abandoned project articles | |||
::::: not sure about this one, keep in mind that we have quite a few projects and efforts that had a shelf life of 12-18+ months, I definitely would not delete them unless the author/contributor agrees to do so. | |||
:::::; old site/outdated stuff | |||
::::: the website is beyond outside our control, Curt is the one "maintaining" it, and obviously been busy with other stuff - many people have discussed the official website, its design and outdated info, fairly critically - but I'd just suggest to ignore it for the sake of simplicity. Otherwise, Curt would need to provide volunteers with admin/moderator privileges so that they can help maintain it, or move things over to the wiki where we actually have contributors doing exactly that. | |||
:::::; rules for contributors | |||
::::: sounds like a good idea, maybe we could have something like the "upload wizard" just for new articles, where the whole thing would be based on a few parameters and customize a few templates, i.e. automatically adding stuff like <nowiki>{{stub}}, {{WIP}} or {{Non-stable}}</nowiki>, based on checking a few check boxes ? Hopefully, there's some kind of extension for "wizard-based" article creation ?--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | |||