Cleanups that destroy information

[Connor Imes]

Hi David,

David Tangye wrote:
> I just looked at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/LocalNet
> On line 320
>
>     Surprisingly, my netboot installation of the Feisty server release
>     set did not install openssh-server by default. After all this work
>     setting up netboot, it was back to the console again for a couple
>     of minutes.
>
> was changed at revision 88 to -
>
>     Surprisingly, my netboot installation of the Intrepid server
>     release set did not install openssh-server by default. After all
>     this work setting up netboot, it was back to the console again for
>     a couple of minutes.
>
> and all references to ubuntu versions prior to 8.10 were updated to 8.10.
>
> In version 90 the page was removed from "CategoryCleanup" with the
> comment:
>
>     ##page was taken out of CategoryCleanup and _not_ assigned any
>     tags as everything is ok
>
>
> Be aware: If people are arbitrarily changing the pages to "look
> better" by doing this, they are actually rendering the information
> inaccurate and therefore worthless. Where all references to earlier
> versions are updated to later versions, the information needs to be
> tested to ensure it is still accurate. Often these sort of notes are
> very version-specific, and relate to temporary workarounds to
> shortcomings and bugs.
>
> This is not a task that can be handled by just changing version
> references without thought and testing. Arbitrary changes, eg in the
> way done in  https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/LocalNet,
> devalue the wiki.
Thank you for catching this and bringing it to our attention.  I don't
think any doc-team members are making changes like this as it is
certainly a poor manner of updating pages.  One of the effects of having
an open wiki is that anybody can change it, which seems to have happened
here.  Keen eyes like yours help to minimize the risk.
>
> In the meantime for the example I mentioned above, I have just
> reversed the sentence to its pre-revision 88 state.
Thank you.
>
> I think you need to define a strategy of principles for how to edit
> and also to highlight to people how to handle 'cleanups' better, as
> the approach taken here is clearly detrimental to the value of the wiki. 
Our current guide for working the wiki is called WikiGuide [1].

[1] https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WikiGuide

I think adding some information about dealing with outdated pages would
certainly be beneficial.  More time is spent updating documentation
these days than writing new pages.

> For instance
>
>    1. People need to be aware of the need to think carefully about the
>       context whereby information was originally presented, and decide
>       what is still version-specific and what is not.
>    2. You need to have guidelines for whether and how to remove
>       personal anecdotes, or whether to preserve historical
>       information and link it better to the specific software version
>       it related to. (/Generally, if I confirm by testing, and update
>       (and expand etc) a personal anecdote, I reword it in more formal
>       and non-anecdotal grammar at the same time, and I think this
>       would be a good general guideline./)
>    3. You need to resolve whether the wiki is to support old versions
>       at all, and if so, how far back, and also how to change stuff(
>       eg at paragraph level?) to flag information as version-specific.
>
I agree with your above points.  For your third point, we don't support
versions of Ubuntu that aren't officially supported anymore.  Wiki
documentation that applies solely to unsupported versions of Ubuntu
either needs to be updated to be relevant to supported versions, or can
be subject to deletion.  Have a look at our Tag [2] system.

[2] https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Tag
> Right now the wiki is a mess of -
>
>     * current info (including old info that is still correct currently),
>     * old info that was correct for a previous version(s) only but not
>       for later versions, and does not state what the version was that
>       it was correct for. Readers will assume that it is correct for
>       the latest version when it is not. /This info needs to have the
>       version it relates to added, or the info rewritten (or if its
>       for really old versions - removed completely?)/
>     * info that states a version that it pertains to, which is  -
>           o still correct for later (including the latest?) versions.
>             /This info needs to have the additional versions it
>             relates to added (or version references removed entirely?)/
>           o not relevant for later versions. /This info needs to have
>             the range of versions it is relevant for added, so it is
>             clear that it is not relevant to later/current versions.
>             /
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> David Tangye
>
This is something that has been brought up before, though as far as I
know, we still haven't settled on a method for marking documentation as
being applicable to specific versions.  Currently the Tag system can be
used to mark pages that need some type of attention.  If you have ideas
about how to appropriately mark pages for different Ubuntu versions,
please let us know!

Thanks again for your feedback,
-Connor