573
edits
User talk:Bigstones/Essay:A plan for a reorganization of the wiki: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User talk:Bigstones/Essay:A plan for a reorganization of the wiki (view source)
Revision as of 14:07, 9 May 2014
, 9 May 2014→Development classification: reply
(→Bot proposal (request?): adding powerful extension) |
(→Development classification: reply) |
||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
:::So we are using "contributor momentum" to evaluate popularity of ideas and to determine if we're interested in teaming up with others who have similar/overlapping ideas. Having just a huge collection of "random & unsupported" feature requests or ideas is begging for trouble, and is the main reason why the issue tracker is not intended for feature requests, i.e. to remain useful for people who are actually able to do certain work. Which is where the wiki shines: Ideas/plans gathered here by contributors (instead of end-users) obviously matter more, even if they should never be touched in months[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1563&p=11299&hilit=#p11299], they're representing long-term direction. And obviously it also matter just how active a contributor is at any given time, ideas and plans have more weight if someone is still involved and very active, vs. others who are no longer involved or very inactive. We have some fairly active fgdata developers whose contributions are not quite in line with ideas laid out by core developers who are meanwhile pretty much inactive, obviously activity beats inactivity. --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | :::So we are using "contributor momentum" to evaluate popularity of ideas and to determine if we're interested in teaming up with others who have similar/overlapping ideas. Having just a huge collection of "random & unsupported" feature requests or ideas is begging for trouble, and is the main reason why the issue tracker is not intended for feature requests, i.e. to remain useful for people who are actually able to do certain work. Which is where the wiki shines: Ideas/plans gathered here by contributors (instead of end-users) obviously matter more, even if they should never be touched in months[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1563&p=11299&hilit=#p11299], they're representing long-term direction. And obviously it also matter just how active a contributor is at any given time, ideas and plans have more weight if someone is still involved and very active, vs. others who are no longer involved or very inactive. We have some fairly active fgdata developers whose contributions are not quite in line with ideas laid out by core developers who are meanwhile pretty much inactive, obviously activity beats inactivity. --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::I'm all over the place *to* understand concepts and connections. I do that because I still believe that there should be a better separation between stable documentation and projects documentation, for the good of normal users, not core devs! While learning scenery development it was a major annoyance stumbling in old surpassed project pages, and I kept having the feeling that I didn't know everything I should. I didn't trust much the portals, either. The forum was a great support in this and it's '''wonderful''' that nobody ever answers "use the search" (which is the standard in Italian forums). Nevertheless, no surprise people say the wiki "just sucks". It took me some time to decide to join and I was not far from staying away. | |||
::::--[[User:Bigstones|Bigstones]] ([[User talk:Bigstones|talk]]) 14:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Tools for a better "new article" interface == | == Tools for a better "new article" interface == | ||