Oops, re aptitude : was [Re: Edgy in the news]

[Dean Sas]

Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 21:21 +0100, Mario Vukelic wrote:
>> If Matthew now says that 'it's simply documentation written by the
>> community, and is not either "official" or "by Canonical"' then it seems
>> to me that there is no official upgrade documentation at all. This is a
>> very wrong situation.
>>
> Thanks for the pointer. However, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ is
> also at the official domain, the only difference being that the upgrades
> notes are in then "community area".  My confusion highlights 2
> significant problems: 
> 
> One, it is very hard (impossible for the casual user I'd say) to
> distinguish community information from official information. I am surely
> no internet or linux newbie and I am used to keep an eye out for
> misinformation, and in this case I kind of failed. I'd argue that the
> website design is much too similar to make the difference clear
> 

Maybe this overlaps with part of the help website qa spec [0]

Regards,
dsas

[0] 
https://features.launchpad.net/products/ubuntu-website/+spec/help-wiki-quality-assurance