A Though on Redundancy of Community Wiki and Other Forms of Support

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Hmmm, it is really annoying when that sort of thing happens!  I'm not
really sure of the best answer to that sort of thing tbh
Apols and regards from
Tom :)



On 5 December 2013 07:54, Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051387 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom the issue I see is there is such discrepancies in the way things are
> done. official docs post incomplete information that leave you having to go
> to the community ones.
>
> I was setting up a postfix mail server based on the official 12.04 docs and
> i couldn't do it as the postfix doc was incomplete.  That is why I initially
> suggested a duplication of the official docs so that the community ones are
> on par with those plus can be extended easily. That way we do not have one
> set of docs saying do things this way where as another set says do it this
> way.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Tom Davies <TomDavies04 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi :)
>> Sometimes that redundancy is helpful.  If you have a subject to find
>> out more about and google it (or duck-duck-go it) then several of
>> those things come together neatly and give better context than an
>> article/wiki-page that tries to reduce confusion by giving it from
>> just one angle.
>>
>> If you need help on a subject that you don't understand then it can
>> help more to have all those different view-points.
>>
>> I found Wolven, of Wolvix, (and Oithona) was about the only person i
>> could understand wrt partitioning and installing Gnu&Linux.  His
>> unique style made it so easy whereas everything else seemed either
>> waaaay beyond me or tooooo patronising.
>>
>> So, redundancy is seldom a waste and can be a huge help.  Also it's
>> unlikely to be wasted because so many posts and pages remain
>> accessible on the internet for soo long.
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 December 2013 14:19, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> > On 2013-12-01 16:44, Svetlana Belkin wrote:
>> >> It might just be me and not understanding why we have redundancy or
>> >> even not having a Community Wiki.  I just feel like it *IS NOT* like
>> >> the genetic code where you can have redundancy and it's useful.
>> >
>> > Whatever we think of it, users' efforts to help result in a lot of
>> > redundancy. Users help other users by answering questions in Ask Ubuntu
>> > and other forums. Some make use of blogs, and a few contribute to the
>> > Community Wiki. This is not a problem per se. On the contrary, it's the
>> > heart and soul of an OS with a lot of community involvement.
>> >
>> > It's true that there is a lot of outdated and/or bad advice out there,
>> > but there isn't much we as a team can do about it. We don't control the
>> > Internet.
>> >
>> > To me, the Community Wiki is merely one of all the resources where you
>> > can look for answers. It's special in the sense that the ubuntu.com
>> > domain name implicitly indicates higher quality. So it's good if we
>> > monitor and tag it, as several have mentioned in this thread, and that's
>> > especially important for those pages to which we link from the official
>> > docs. But would it make sense to close the Community Wiki, or some of
>> > the pages, just for the sake of it? No, it would not.
>> >
>> > The most important thing we as a team can do for the users is to make
>> > *the official docs* as correct and relevant as possible. The higher
>> > relevance, the more often you'll see people linking to it from various
>> > forums and blogs.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Gunnar Hjalmarsson
>> > https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj
>> >
>> > --
>> > ubuntu-doc mailing list
>> > ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-doc mailing list
>> ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Aquilina