I realize that by spurring this discussion I am opening a can of worms that has long existed and been reiterated upon continuously, but I also feel that urgent action is needed, since this is the point that Ubuntu has indeed been established as a tour-de-force to be reckoned with. I opened a corresponding bug on Launchpad: <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/792979">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/792979</a> People on the forums have complained time and time again about the state of the Ubuntu wiki, and by the "wiki", I mean the community-contributed technical documentation - as `Thewhistlingwind' said, it is 'hard to navigate' and lies 'in a backwater of the community'. Notwithstanding is the problem that there is a wealth of information in the forum archives that is just sitting there inaccessible to most new users without extensive searching, and which urgently needs to become part of the wiki. The very fact that the documentation is not centralized nor easily accessible makes potential contributors refrain from contributing to it. The bigger problem with this is that it creates unnecessary forum traffic - new users stumbling upon a problem and unable to find a useful solution come tumbling down to the forums and ask questions that have been asked over and over again, as well as that could be solved by the simple availability of a few lines worth of tweaks. The current "Ubuntu wiki" is actually official documentation regarding the hierarchy and organization of the Ubuntu machinery, and while indeed it may be called a "wiki" of sorts, it is not a wiki in the truest sense in that it is not a community edited hub of technical information that new users may turn to to solve their problems. Instead, the path that leads to the actual "wiki" - the community edited documentation, is obscure and of course, a simple Google search for "Ubuntu wiki" on the web leads to no useful technical documentation directly. In fact, a user may be thrown off by the fact that the pages ask him to refer to the "official documentation" as well as the "community contributed documentation". Take the example of Arch Linux. It has probably the most excellent Wiki one could ask for; there's Arch, and there's the ArchWiki. New users installing Arch are referred to the Wiki - and most of the qualms a new user may have may be solved directly by reading the wiki - there's no five different places a user has to refer to to find what information is relevant and what is out of date. Any useful information arrived at in the forums is made immediately available on the Wiki. I do agree that Arch and Ubuntu are potentially targeted at different user bases, but while Arch is intended to be an "advanced distro", the presence of the Wiki makes it accessible even to new users. In contrast, there are some veterans on the Ubuntu forums which have posted several great HOWTO's there, but these really belong in a central place on the Wiki, along with other good documentation that pops up from time to time. I would like to propose the following two modest changes, to begin with: 1> The "Ubuntu Team Wiki" may be made part of something like the "About" pages on the main website, directly linked to from the homepage, thereby preserving its integrity. 2> The "Community Contributed Documentation" may be renamed as the "Ubuntu Wiki", and linked to directly from the homepage - preferably somewhere near the top right corner. If these two changes are made, the "Wiki" shall already be a big leap into trying to fix itself - more and more Ubuntu veterans would come and contribute to it, making it the "go-to" place for referring to technical documentation on Ubuntu. The problem of dead links id hardly an issue - once the documentation is easily out there to be edited, this problem shall vanish in no time. -- Manjul Apratim