Quality assurance on the help wiki

[Matthew East]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

* Paul O'Malley:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is a rather simple proposal anything that is in CategoryCleanup
> for over six months or is three months into the next release's cycle
> should be put into a  CategoryReview.

I'm not sure I fully understand what your proposal is about, and how it
affects other Ubuntu subdomains... But if I understand at least the
general feel of your post, you are raising the point that it would be
nice to have a mechanism by which users can quickly identify how
trustworthy a particular page on the wiki is.

The CategoryCleanup mechanism was a rudimentary way to begin doing this,
while providing the people working on the wiki with a list of pages that
need work. However, it is quite right that this system isn't actually
helping the users at all.

The answer here must surely be "look at Wikipedia" (cue cheering from
Corey). That wiki has the following features that our wiki doesn't have
right now:

 1. Lots of different types of categories for different problems with
documents.
 2. A good way of showing the reliability to the user - a box at the top
of the page.
 3. A means by which the *reason* that the document is in the category
is recorded for people who later come across the page.

Number 1 is something we can remedy immediately. We should draw up a
list of different types of categories that we can use for quality
control to label what is wrong with a particular page. We already have
CategoryCleanup and CategoryNeedsExpansion - do we need more?

Number 2 is something we don't have at the moment, and sorely need. We
should have a chat with the moin developers about this, and find out the
best way to get a similar effect. Maybe it exists already in a more
recent version of Moin, who knows.

Number 3 could be simply achieved simply by leaving a comment on the top
of a page which is put into the particular category (and in the box when
saving the page) as to the reason for the categorisation.

Any thoughts?

Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEsj7StSaF0w5rBv8RAokDAJ97PaJrS9v2YMH/fiip5tnogWhP9QCeOp0X
v01nHueq1vFqznhMO/cI6a0=
=qWfw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----